Safe Speed Forums

You (in general, plural) also ignore common sense facts. Like (for instance) the person with the Range Rover ignoring the fact that their Sprinter could probably be carrying 2 tonnes of unsecured load in the back which, when shifted by inertia can easily compromise the safety and stability of the van. This is unlikely to occur with cars. Ignore that their tyres are of a construction biased towards durability, not grip and performance. If you put those Sprinter tyres on a Range Rover, it would have far inferior controllability. Ignore the fact that therefore the brakes are less efficient. Ignore the fact that the van is more affected by wind and weather.

Yet, we see vans being driven aggressively every day, by largely untrained drivers (untrained in how to cope with extreme situations), in a rush, under pressure of work.

Vans are far more likely to be overloaded than cars. Probably more likely to be less well maintained, too, as the wear and tear on them is greater. In most cases lower speed limits on normal roads are ignored by van drivers and are not really enforced as it's difficult for the police to do that.

Really, the biggest thing is the grief and distress caused by death and injury. Yet that is put to one side so you can "prove" your holier-than-thou attitudes to your (plural) superior driving skills can overcome the basic fact that a van travelling at 50mph is easier to control in extremis than one travelling at 60mph. Of course! If *YOU* were driving with your fantastic skills, the van would be safe at 100mph, with a tonne of load 0.5m away from the back of the driver's head. No way *YOU* would lose control, eh?
I say, a general reduction in speed is a GOOD thing, does not affect anyone's life in real terms (except perhaps saves it) and there is no God-given right to travel at ANY speed.

You can tell what the general population thinks of your one-trick agenda by listening to see if road safety (and more specifically, criticism of the UK speed control measures) has been an issue in the General Election. It has not. Which means that normal people are generally satisfied with the direction it is taking - a steady but relentless clamping down on the "freedom" do do what you want and the move towards a much more controlled environment....

Apart from anything else, a reduction in speed can give a far NICER journey as the stress level is clicked down a few notches. You can see this on stretches of Motorway where average speed cameras are in operation. People stop competing, drive slower and it becomes more relaxing and less stressful. True, lower speeds also mean less pollution (or CO2) and less fuel consumption, less road wear, and less wear on vehicles and tyres, as well as less ambulances.

In addition, you are a bunch of middle-class, male, anglo-saxon white, educated people (with a few caravan-dwelling ex-hippies thrown in) - a very narrow band of brothers whose lives are dominated by their rant against the state on this single issue. I wonder why little support from other parts of the community, women, students, immigrants etc?

... About time people in "SS" (achtung!) smelt the coffee. You need to accept you have comprehensively lost your battle.
Ling

Your point above is why SS people need to look in the mirror. If 99% of the population is told "can you slow down a bit", they understand exactly what "a bit" relates to.

But SS-ers don't. You want it defined, perhaps to decimal points?

I think it's clear from reading the above stuff that one of the biggest problems facing this organisation is the disparity of views.

You (in general, plural) also ignore common sense facts.

I say, a general reduction in speed is a GOOD thing, does not affect anyone's life in real terms (except perhaps saves it) and there is no God-given right to travel at ANY speed.

Why don't you listen to the (silent) majority? Is that an oxymoron? Whatever...

Apart from anything else, a reduction in speed can give a far NICER journey as the stress level is clicked down a few notches. You can see this on stretches of Motorway where average speed cameras are in operation. People stop competing, drive slower and it becomes more relaxing and less stressful.

True, lower speeds also mean less pollution (or CO2) and less fuel consumption,

In addition, you are a bunch of middle-class, male, anglo-saxon white, educated people

Because they all see your cause as a tiny side-issue that (in general) they disagree with. There are far more important issues in life to funnel your energy into. About time people in "SS" (achtung!) smelt the coffee. You need to accept you have comprehensively lost your battle.

...and yet, when you look at the way enforcement is going, my view prevails!

Amazing that in practice, it's my view (in general) that gets enacted, not SafeSpeed's views.]

Again, if you all just slow down a bit, your journeys will be less stressful,

there will be less fatigue

And I told you all this years ago, but an organisation that uses "SS" as it's logo will not win hearts and minds.

You just won't listen. "SS" means... what? Oh, yes, I hear jackboots approaching.

I know you have it in a road sign, but honestly - you use red and black which are all the colours of the Nazi and right wing symbols the world over.

You just won't listen to me, eh? You just don't see it, do you?

==

Talking about the logo, not for a minute suggesting anyone has these tendencies. But, it is as crazy as calling an organisation KKK.

I think it's clear from reading the above stuff that one of the biggest problems facing this organisation is the disparity of views.

There wouldn't be much point having a discussion forum if the opposite were true, would there?

hahaha, what anal arguments you make. Do you want a different stopping distance for each different car/van/truck? Probably, in many cases, the highway code stopping distances are accurate - not for you sharp-shooters of course - but for ordinary drivers tuning their radio, sipping their coke or picking their nose or chatting, drivers who have no experience of a flat-out stop since their driving test.

What do you want, the shortest time the Stig can manage on a hi-grip surface in a Porsche 911?

No, what I mean is that Safe Speed has so many different opinions that it is hard to simplify the arguments you make.

What can SS (achtung!) say? "empower speed to the driver" or "liberalise speeding rules" or "free choice on speed" or "intelligent speed", none of which make good sense.

It is just that it says "SS" (achtung!) and the colours are the same. Ask most people in the street what "SS" (achtung!) means and they will indicate Adolf's elite troops.

As for the letters S - S , well, that's like having a name that contracts to KKK or to IRA or HIV (or even benign meanings like SOS or PIN or USSR) - I mean, you just wouldn't do it would you? WHY? Because the meaning of the letters already exists. So why do you allow "SS" (achtung!) when the stormtrooper meaning is so vivid? Then, you use the same colour scheme as the Swastika used. Seems crazy to me.

On the campaign index page:
"you can't measure safe driving in miles per hour"

Mole: "But Ling, how can this be true?! If you look in the Highway Code, produced by the "thinking people in office" you will see that there is no difference in stopping distance at a given speed for a car, truck or van!"

==

hahaha, what anal arguments you make. Do you want a different stopping distance for each different car/van/truck? Probably, in many cases, the highway code stopping distances are accurate - not for you sharp-shooters of course - but for ordinary drivers tuning their radio, sipping their coke or picking their nose or chatting, drivers who have no experience of a flat-out stop since their driving test.

What do you want, the shortest time the Stig can manage on a hi-grip surface in a Porsche 911?

Like (for instance) the person with the Range Rover ignoring the fact that their Sprinter could probably be carrying 2 tonnes of unsecured load in the back which, when shifted by inertia can easily compromise the safety and stability of the van. This is unlikely to occur with cars. Ignore that their tyres are of a construction biased towards durability, not grip and performance. If you put those Sprinter tyres on a Range Rover, it would have far inferior controllability. Ignore the fact that therefore the brakes are less efficient. Ignore the fact that the van is more affected by wind and weather.

...Like "reduce speed" or "speed kills". Short, snappy (and true).

What can SS (achtung!) say? "empower speed to the driver" or "liberalise speeding rules" or "free choice on speed" or "intelligent speed", none of which make good sense.

What can SS (achtung!) say? "empower speed to the driver" or "liberalise speeding rules" or "free choice on speed" or "intelligent speed", none of which make good sense.

ANNEX E TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT CIRCULAR ROADS 1/80

THE EFFECT OF ALTERING LEVELS OF SPEED LIMITS: SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE
1. It is a common but mistaken belief that drivers allow themselves a set margin over the prevailing speed limit, and that if a limit is raised by 10 mph, they will travel 10 mph faster. In fact, an increase in an unrealistic speed limit rarely brings an increase in traffic speeds. (“Unrealistic” is here used to mean “substantially below the 85 percentile speed”). It is much more likely that there will be no change, or even a fall. It seems that drivers relieved of the frustrations of too low a limit rarely abuse the higher one. Indeed it is not unusual for the accident rate to fall when a poorly-observed limit is raised. This may mean that reduced frustration leads to changes in driving behaviour conducive to accident reduction.
2. The evidence for asserting that speeds and accidents do not increase in proportion to an increase in speed limit comes from studies made before and after unrealistic local limits have been raised. Some of the main evidence is summarised in paragraphs 3-9 below.
3. In 1960, a Departmental Road Safety Committee reporting on the results of the experimental introduction of 40 mph speed limits in the London area concluded that the raising of the limit had resulted in no appreciable change in speeds, while the accident rate remained substantially the same. The committee considered that the higher limit had achieved its purpose of removing unjustifiably low speed limits, and encouraging a proper standard of enforcement.
4. A before and after study carried out at 20 locations through Kent, where the limit had been raised from 30 mph to 40 mph, showed a fall in speed, or no change, in 80% of the measurements taken, and a small increase in the others. The total number of accidents fell by almost 20%.
5. In 1973 the Metropolitan Police produced the results of a study on six sections of trunk road where - in accordance with the Department’s criteria - speed limits had been raised from 40 to 50 mph, or from 30 mph to 40 mph. At four locations the 85 percentile went up by less than 2 mph and at two locations it went down. Allowing for a general decrease in accidents, the reduction in the number of accidents at these places was 15%.
6. When the speed limit in Park Lane, London W1, was increased from 30 mph to 40 mph in 1970, the 85 percentile speed fell from 43.6 mph (measured in 1970) to 39.2 mph (measured in 1974).
7. In 1974, the Midland Road Safety Unit reported the results of a study of a large number of speed limit changes from 30 mph to 40 mph. Their conclusion that there had been no significant increase in either speeds or accidents was in line with the conclusions from a similar exercise for cases in other parts of the country carried out within the Department.
8. The Department has recently conducted a survey of the effects of changing the levels of speed limits in various parts of the country. The results indicate that raising speed limits has little effect either on the speeds of vehicles or the rates of accidents.

9. The following examples of local speed limit changes from 30 mph to 40 mph illustrate this point.
85%ILE SPEED ACCIDENT RATE
COUNTY ROAD BEFORE AFTER BEFORE AFTER
Cheshire A41 44 43 1.06 0.6
Lancashire B5253 43 37 0.78 0.85
West Yorkshire A58 40/43 47/52 1.45 0.65
Warwickshire A34 42/42 40/42 0.5 0.65
Warwickshire B4453 42/44 43/43 3.2 1
(40/42 41/41)
Surrey (47/40 45/37)

The table above shows that, in the one instance in which speeds rose, the accident rate went down.

10. With the removal of the energy conservation speed limits in June 1977, the national speed limit went up from 50 to 60 mph on single carriageway roads and from 60 to 70 mph on dual carriageway roads. This afforded an ideal opportunity to judge if traffic responds to national speed limit changes in the same way as it does to local changes. A survey of speeds at 49 points throughout the country made in July 1977, compared with a similar survey in July 1976, showed that for cars and motorcycles with a headway of at least 5 seconds there was no change in the mean speed on single carriageway roads and a 1 mph on single carriageway roads and 2 mph on dual carriageway roads (sic). An analysis of national accident rates in the months following the changes shows no evidence that raising the limits caused any increase in the number of accidents.