Safe Speed Forums

I'm surprised this isn't being hotly debated on here!

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default ... ryId=20890

Apologies if it's on another board and I've missed it - mods, feel free to delete. It seems to be a story about Utah increasing its speed limits and the two thing that the "experts" predicted (a) a bloodbath and (b) a general increase in speeds such that motorists still just drove "X" MPH over the new limit, simply never happened.

Some of the comments are relevant.

- Utah is like outer space compared to the U.K. with very low population density.
- Raising the limit from 75mph to 80mph is hardly a giant leap.
- The average speed rising by 2-3 mph when the limit is raised by 5mph is hardly surprising.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I think that cuts both ways though. Presumably it was like outer space before they raised the limits too? If so, I would have thought that the changes were still meaningful.

Similarly, despite it being only such a small increase in limit:

(a) the increase in traffic speed did not simply rise by the same amount and
(b) it still delivered a benefit

makes it all the more remarkable, doesn't it? (albeit that I completely accept this isn't earth-shattering in any way, it just illustrates a small benefit that (I believe!) merits a wider trial.

I like this line

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

Or indeed to improve it.

Which just goes to show that speed limits could be set higher without any dire consequenses, apart from leaches in "safety partnerships" losing jobs and money.

_________________
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.

What is dire about 'leaches in "safety partnerships" losing jobs and money.' ?

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

The thought of it has obviously upset someone not too far away.... (tail, legs, sulk?)

"When the US Congress allowed states to increase their maximum speed limits in December 1995, the insurance/safety lobby protested that these moves would result in horrific carnage -- 6,400 more fatalities each year (a 15% increase). Actual fatalities and injuries fell, despite significant increases in total miles travelled and small increases in average speeds! (Source: NHTSA-NCSA)
Insurance rates have been falling in the United States despite increased speed limits starting December 1996. ICBC promotes "frozen rates" when they should explain why there are no rate reductions!"

_________________
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.

Well we don't know that, nor did I say that. However, I was just highlighting the fact it was done to bring drivers within the law.

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

When a behaviour becomes so commonplace, authorities have to decide to alter the accepted perception of 'normal' so that necessary 'enforcement' has to be seen to be fair. As any culture grows and changes so do the rules that govern that culture.

The fact that adjustment now enables most to be compliant ensures that the growing culture is becoming acceptable. It has to be difficult to know when and how much, rules are altered to adjust to the newly acceptable 'norm'.

Montana is another very good example - they introduced cameras and limits and crashes and injuries went up - they took them away and the figures returned to their 'normal'.

I am sure there are Social Science Professors that can help give details on these episodes of life altering normals and exactly why they work.

I suspect it is as we grow to learn and understand more we become more sophisticated and so what was new 20 - 50 years ago is now 'basic' so more involved processes exist so new rules of behaviour exist.
To a degree the cameras here in the UK have forced drivers into understanding and learning how to 'cope' with them - some find technology as the answer, some eyesight observation, and some a mixture of both (an so on), but we learn to deal with new processes. IF however that process is proved wrong, and is not in fact better overall, then it must be removed.
And this is what Safe Speed has proved. This new system went wrong, it is now well past it's sell by date and needs to be removed, so that, proper processes can once again come to the fore, and better road safety improvements made. Thus improving good behaviours and retaining the improving on the former previous one's.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Safety isn't really an issue with people like Greenshed, it's just a smokescreen, the real issue is making money and prosecuting otherwise safe drivers, by reducing limits to the point that the "criminal" element goes up, proportionally, as the limit goes down.

_________________
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.

I don't agree. It's just self justification. They started out thinking what they were doing was about safety. "Well, it's obvious that slower speeds must be safer..."

However, when the logic behind their thinking was questioned (and, deep down, they know it's all rubbish) they found it too hard publically to admit that their cherished beliefs upon which their work was based were just plain wrong.

This will happen with man made global warming. Just wait. It's hard to recant your religion.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

You have missed the point once more.

The speed of the traffic hasn't changed even though the speed limit has.

It would seem that the average speed of traffic was just above the speed limit and now it is just below the speed limit so the cause-and-effect is still in the same balance as it was before the speed limit change.

So what change would you be expecting? Take a merit mark all of those who said none.

It would appear that once again you have missed the point. The speed of traffic is the same, the safety is the same ,the only difference is that NOW, people aren't breaking the law and people like you are no longer needed.

_________________
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.

Greenshed,

You once said in a post, that most people would drive at 10% higher than the speed limit , no matter what it is set at.

This story obviously makes a mockery of your "theory" there doesn't it?

We now know that in reality 85% of the drivers will drive at a speed that THEY feel is sfae for THAT road....which is what the 85 percentile setting is all about. Letting the real drivers determine the speed limit NOT people sitting in offices who may not even drive.


"The 85th percentile speed represents the speed at which 85 percent of free-flowing traffic feels is the safest, and according to the report engineers have determined that the best safety is achieved when speed limits match that 85th percentile speed."

_________________
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.

Correction:
... the effect has been simply to fix the 'law', bringing 'it' within the 85th %ile.

Since the previous speed limit was already pretty close to what it should have been to begin with - the norm, as it were - it had absolutely nothing to do with highway safety at all. The UDOT didn't suspect it had anything to do with highway safety to begin with anyway.

As for the theory that it had anything to do with cause-and-effect, that only applies to those who went faster because the 'limit' went up. It would be an invasion of privacy, but I'd love to know whose speed didn't change, whose went up, [whose, if any, went down for that matter,] and why. My guess is the vast majority of drivers in that section neither sped up nor slowed down at all.

Safety only becomes an issue when there are significant speed differentials. Since everyone was going within 5MpH of each other to begin with, and the 'law' was off by less than 10MpH, the only surprise is that an Amerikan government agency implicitly admitted that the vast majority of the drivers on the I-15 are in fact reasonable and prudent.

What makes the Law of Gravity a fact is that it is a simple observation of the truth - that, and it cannot possibly be broken.
The more often a posted speed 'limit' is 'broken' by the general public, the bigger the lie told to the public, especially if the most likely consequence for 'breaking' it is manufactured by those who choose said limit to begin with.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation