Safe Speed Forums

At last we agree on something, I have stated time and time again that speed limits should be set by Trafpol BUT more and more local authorities are ignoring their recommendations...WHY?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Why ?
You don't get elected, or re-elected, by ignoring the people who vote for you.
The locals want humps to slow the traffic down: you build humps (ignoring that it is the locals who do much of the speeding and who complain afterwards about their cars being damaged or the noise)
Then there is the other problem about speed limits. If you make an area tightly speed-controlled you find that traffic tends to either not go through that area, or to still go through but at higher speed than the limit (as said before: drivers tends to judge a safe speed....safe for who is another thing though)
If you enact a 20mph zone (which has to have traffic calming measures to BE a zone) then you will find that the only people who it inconveniences are the residents....another story.
And there is also the other reason for reduced speeds, to deliberately reduce traffic by making it inconvenient and unpleasant to drive there.
That seems to be the planning mantra now, everything has to be eco-this or eco-that...houses built without any parking area adjacent to them....entire communities built with no parking....and a bus service that enables you to go somewhere else 4 times-a-day.
So, the reason why tends to be diffuse....but it is probably because they can.


Oh, and for the latest twist in the saga of the incandescent bulb: It is only illegal to sell the 100watt type to people who intend to use it for houses....it is still legal to sell them to people who want to use them in "offices", "shops" or "somewhere-else"

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

That's why we have trafpol, to detect and halt this poor behaviour - oh wait, we seem to have cameras instead!
Pushing others to go faster (or out of the way) is wrong. Drivers who fail to reasonably yield should also be tugged by trafpol.

However, I will repeat an earlier opinion that people should be tested for motorway competence. Those who cannot show they can integrate with the traffic flow (at least maintain 'truck speed') should have an exclusion placed on their licence.


I wouldn't be unhappy with that, it's certainly a step in the right direction. The police depend on public support to get their job done, so they have no interest in going against the will of the reasonable majority.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

This may well be valid for two lane carriageways, but it doesn't apply on those with 3, 4 or 5.
Don't forget, the Germans manage with much greater differentials, even on two lane carriageways (been there done that) without total carnage befalling them (even with their super short slip roads). Before people start comparing stats: one should account for drivers of other nations nipping across the border to zip along their autobahns without any formal motorway/autobahn tuition (unlike the Germans).

I think it’s appalling that UK learner drivers are prohibited from any hands-on, motorway tuition. When using one for the first time, any bad habits we pick up can (and for many usually do) remain for a lifetime. With appropriate tuition, I reckon we could afford much higher limits without increased risks.


So, no real difference then!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Well, er yes, it would not be illegal to do 80mph any more.

IN real term . no huge difference as so many at 80 mph as they all pass me easy at my 70 mph.

I keep legal . try to .. but we all know we fluctuate above und below anyway on any one journey

Any one who claimotherwise ist not being true to self

. Only a computerised car can be so precise ., und even then . tyrres ,, sixe of wheels ,,road surface can play part here und the computer may not detect this These cars fail at lollypoints fo far. toe ,., und I would not want such as I believe in the freedom und ability und spirit of mankind to progress und make best of the world they steward in their era.

Tja . you know me.. respect me und I kow .. liek . respect you .. even if I am a bit " felinely playful" at times. You arre normal human wiht sense of fun .. und we respect even if we not see from same angle at times.

But we all know rest of EU safe enough at 80 mph, UK driver just as able .even abler

I think we all agree a fast road shoulde be limited accordingly. Few of us drive above 20 moh in tricky urbans with the parked cars other hazards.. so we have no real issure as this also match EU . bit then all rules should match to be fair to all here.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

Does it then therefore become safe to do 80?

Where as you state breaking the legal speed limit is dangerous. Or is there two different issues legal and safe.

What is the situation with safety vs legality on a motorway?

A) At the moment it is safe (given the conditions) to dive at 80 on a motorway but illegal,

B) It is not safe (given the conditions) to drive at 80 and it is illegal.

Does changing the limit to 80 make it safe and legal?

This is what annoys me about the “speed kills” camp. There is no separation between legal and safe. You can, given appropriate conditions crash and kill within the speed limit. You can drive in excess of the speed limit and not crash. The only thing that changes is the chance of death. “If you hit me at 30 there is an 80% chance I live” That is still a 20 % chance the person will die! one in five if you like. We should be concentrating in educating people so they don’t crash, not minimising the effects, which “speed kills”is all about. It is a dangerous policy, which accepts people will die on the road, as long as it is kept to a minimum. We should focus on collision avoidance “ if you don’t hit me there is a 100% chance I will live” that is the road safety message we should focus on. Not messing around with speed limits to give the illusion of safety.

It would appear from the survey most drivers may think like that. Other wise there would be more deaths on the roadthan there is.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

Like I said: there would be no difference in the prosecution threshold, those at (the same) safe speeds will still be needlessly prosecuted (85% and all that).
Like I said , no real difference, no one will go any faster; those who do are more likely to face a speeding penalty (no 'dead man's land' between legal and prosecuted) - perhaps this is what some people want?

Do you think it's appalling (for road safety) that we don't allow any hands-on motorway tuition?
Do you think we could afford to significantly raise motorway traffic speeds without increasing risk if we had such tuition?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Not really. I never had motorway tuition and seem to manage OK, as do many others. Did you ever have motorway tuition?




See previous post regarding speed differential issue.

I honestly can't see how any one in their right mind can say that a (possible) speed differential over a three lane motorway of 40MPH should be a problem so long as lane discipline is adhered to sensibly. We have cyclicts on NSLs doing as little as 5-10MPH and the speed differential then over other traffic can be a s much as 50MPH.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

If you drive at any speed and there is no collision then it follows there is no injury.

The problem is that there are 30 million motorists in the UK (something like that) and when the roads are populated with lots of motorists they do from time-to-time collide. By accident usually and significantly the vast majority of the drivers, I am sure you would agree, must have believed that they were driving in the belief they would not collide when that accident occurred. When this happens higher speeds generally cause more damage to the vehicles and their occupants as well as other road users. The faster the average speed of all of the traffic the more frequently there are accidental collisions. This is why the problem is mitigated by managing the speed vehicles are driven with speed limits. Allow drivers a choice to exceed the limits when they see fit and the incidence of collisions will rise. This doesn't mean that every incidence of excess speed will be a problem but what it does mean is that the excess speed in all instances has the potential to do so by and that potential is indicated by the relationship between the average speed of traffic and the incidence of collisions.

The management of the average speed of traffic is a method of "collision avoidance" just as you suggest.

Why does the "speed kills" camp annoy you when you seem to have described the exact mechanism they promote and their view is justified?

What's a KSI?

It has no meaning unless it is qualified.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

as an "expert commentator" in road safety issues in relation to road traffic you would of course know but evidently do not even though I have explained it on several occasions.

Why don't you show how any of this applies instead of trying to obfuscate the issue with your puerile diversions.

To explain this to everyone (and to spell it out to you): Greenie here thinks I don't know the difference between 'serious accident' and 'seriously injured', I know I'm using the tables of 'serious accident', but the definition of 'serious accident' is where someone is "seriously injured, but not killed". Granted the data isn't absolutely perfect for our means, but it is the best we have and I think it is good enough to use.

Would you describe yourself as an “expert commentator”, i.e. have you ever represented an SCP in any way? (most people suspect, but I know), or will you avoid this one yet again?
How about you define what 'safe' means? Which is safer, cyanide or water?
Do you want to define true camera effectiveness while you're at it?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

You don't have a clue do you?

KSI = Killed or Seriously Injured

KSI must be qualified by adding COLLISION or CASUALTY to it


You can therefore have a:
KSI Collision - A Collision in which someone has been Killed or Seriously Injured
KSI Casualty - this is an injury that is fatal (killed) or serious and the casualty is caused in a KSI Collision

Are you getting this Steve?

It is quite obvious you didn't know.

This is becoming utterly silly, it's not like the difference isn't obvious.

You've completely bypassed the three questions I've asked of you (again) even though you quoted them (I've left them in the quote above).

The daft thing is that all this was kicked off with your out-of-the-air claim of "Speed [...] is responsible for almost 50% of the fatal casualties and a similar figure for the serious casualties."
You've evaded my calls for you to explain this claim by instead arguing the interpretation of the summary.

Either sustantiate your earlier claim (without repeating the same obfuscation), or don't respond at all.
I bet you respond with 'what's the point if you don't understand this', which will again only serve to distract from your evasion of substantiating your claim; if you do I'll respond by revisiting your lack of understanding of the term 'safe'

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Now that's astounding!
Do you really not believe motorway driving could be safer if we had motorway tuition?


That's not the point is it? Could we manage better? Are drivers safe enough? What is "safe enough"?
Are you representative of the general driving population? (I doubt it given your differing opinions from the majority)
Have you had any driving instruction above the level of average Joe since passing your driving test?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

By rights I'm not sure if I really should be driving our telehandler at work. I have been driving them for 20 years and have had tuition, but have no proficiency tests.

I know for certian that I shouldn't really be driving the fork lift, not training at all on that, even though I do 250+ hrs a year on it.

I shouldn't be using a chain saw, no test their.

Not allowed to drive a digger of any sort.

I drove trucks pulling over sized loads legally while in the US, can't even drive a 10t ridgid here.

I just about every load of wheat I hauled this year had me over the legal GVW for the machine, even though neither that tractor, nor the trailer were near or over their design weight limit.

I am not allowed to change an abrasive wheel on a grinder.

Now Weepej, given that if I stray 1mph over the speed limit I am doomed to a certain and grizzly death and if by some miracle, I escape, well postpone , the certain grizzly death, you will have me banned/hung/shot etc, surely some kind of extra tuition would be advisable on such dangerous high speed roads considering all the other jobs some public sector parasite says I can't do without a test/letter off both sets of grand parents?

Mark Twain's phrase "a distinction without a difference" springs to mind

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown