Safe Speed Forums

Indeed?

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22931&p=227079&hilit=Weepy#p227079

You started to answer, but then went quiet on me...

Oh, and just to prove it's "nonsense", I couldn''t trouble you to answer any of the other questions in my last post, could I?

I've never suggested doing away with speed limits totally but I do have a couple of ideas which may or not work.

(a) The first is a limit over a long section of similar road (like a rural A or B road for example) and it may be twenty miles or more or it may just be a short length like through a village high street.

This section of road would be evaluated by using the opinion of the general motoring public, who on average are pretty good judges of safe speeds, if they want to survive (which the vast majority seem to do) and probaly given approval by the police force of the area. It would be a maximum safe speed for that stretch road, at certain points at certain times, when all things being perfect the average driver should be able to HIT and stay safe. This limit wouldn't be policed that often because people know that it is more of a guideline for a maximum rather than something that you have to stick to.

(b) the second varies every few hundred yards, is set by someone in an office who probably doesn't know the road in question because they probaly don't drive or if they do, they live about twenty miles away and don't drive in the area where they work , except to and from the office. This limit is probably,because of it's ever changing length and maybe only between two junctions or roundabout, something that people feel that they can drive AT easily and maintain that speed for the length of the limit and feel totally safe because even mrs Jones who has just passed her test drives at that limit every day. and there's speed cameras every mile or so on this limit to make sure that you are a safe driver so it must be good.

Now I wonder which one Weepej would prefer? Probaly the second one but it's a strange fact, that when limits were more like the first one (a), then we had the safest roads around and now we seem to be down at number 15, I wonder what's changed?

_________________
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.

You don't think this was a suitable response?:

No chance at all that it could raise incident rates in the 20MPH and 50MPH limits then?....of course not....this is Weepej's world you are dreaming in...

_________________
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.

Not at all. But what it does show very clearly is that there is more to safety than speed.

Of course not - but surely that supports what Safe Speed has been saying all along - that speed cannot be considered in isolation as a factor in road accidents and needs to be viewed in the context both of the general road environment and the specific circumstances at the time.


Nobody's ever said that on here to my recollection.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

You just don't get it

People (not just drivers) slow down where and when there's danger, in order to lessen the probability of said danger resulting in a crash.
A lower speed does not remove the danger, just as a higher speed where and when there's no danger present does not make a safe road dangerous.
Actually, lower speeds could even be counter-productive if they increase the number of potentially dangerous situations.

I'll ask again:

What makes it so important that we treat speed limits as inviolate - never to be exceeded by anyone at any time, even by a small amount?

And "because it's the law" isn't an answer.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Actually "because it is the law" is the answer. And that is very unfortunate. Making people conform to arbitrary regulations and preventing them from thinking from themselves is the leitmotiv of all totalitarian regimes.

_________________
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

Well, let's see if someone can come up with another (reasonable) answer.

In a free society - which our's is supposed to be - laws are supposed to be backed by a good reason. It's that reason I'm looking for. But, sadly, I don't believe I'm going to get any reasonable answer.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Quite so Pete; I wouldn't hold your breath...

Answer Pete's earlier question please weepej, if you can...

As for what you levelled at me earlier weepej?

But I think people will see it for what it was...

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

It's not an answer to any argument about changing the law or its application.

Does the reason have to be rigidly logical and based on known truths? It could be a politically or financially expedient decision, while speed limits have a loose connection to safety they are relatively simple, i.e. cheap, to enforce and most people understand that going too fast is bad so it makes sense in a limited way. Hammering an inherently fuzzy system down to a binary one is on the face of it ridiculous, however it does lend itself to having a simple rule which is easy to comply with and prosecute if disobeyed.

A driver may feel aggrieved at receiving a speeding ticket when they do not think they were doing anything unsafe, however they will generally accept that they were breaking the law. This ignores the issue of incorrect readings of course.

Now imagine that a driver was issued a ticket for driving unsafely for the conditions based on the opinion of another person, how likely is it that they would feel this is completely reasonable?

Given a choice how many drivers would want a system with uncertain and subjective parameters to avoid prosecution in comparison with a value which can be easily complied with when there was any likelihood of being caught.

Sorry, rambling a bit there Pete without supplying a 'good' reason, mainly because I doubt there is one other than the expediency I suggested at the start.

Believe it or not I still had the OT in mind.

Perhaps it is wrong to think of VAS as a reminder of the speed limit in order to avoid being snapped by a camera and more of a tool to alert a driver to the idea that they should approach the hazard at less than the speed limit. Not that they really do that.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

Seriously? You don't see the need for a speed limit say outside a school, or in a town centre?

Maybe he does, and maybe he doesn't. But he's asking you, as a strong defender of speed limits, to provide that reason, as you see it.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

er, "no"!...

...as my subsequent (and ignored) post in that thread went on to say.

Your answer above is riddled with inconsistency - coming, as it does, from someone who keeps shouting that ANY speed is potentially lethal. I was keen to probe this further - in particular whether you'd expect different classes of vehicle to keep to the same speed limits you suggest above, or have different ones and on different classes of road. Like you, I agree that any speed can be potentially lethal. However, it would appear that unlike you, I don't happen to believe that very rigidly enforcing any particular arbitrarily chosen limit is going to make any appreciable difference to that fact! The only speed limit, on any road, that I can see as aligning with your logic, would be walking pace.

Now ,Mole , I'm playing devils advocate -and Weepy sees speed as the devil incarnate - so perhaps we should all be going in reverse ,as increases in forward speed ( according to Weepy increases the risk)-so in reverse we have negative speed , so by definition even ,almost negative risk . But hold on , in reverse visibility is reduced, so negative risk is diminished by reduced visibility . So is the criteria visibility or speed - I'm confused -the "facts " say one thing ,my forty odd years of driving say another -HELP .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Now you're just being ridiculous. You know full well what I mean.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Graball, yes there is something in that, speed limits can be seen as a target and I have seen people say that if they mowed down a ped in a 30 zone whilst going at 30 (with 30 being a speed that's far too fast for the conditions) then it wouldn't be their fault because they were within the limit (although I do think that is posturing).

Regardless, if the message "The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions." was more heavily publicised you'd still need speed limits.

Eh?

How does publicising such a message make any difference to whether speed limits are needed or not?

In any case, it is only an absolute legal maximum. It is not an absolute safety maximum - any speed limit, by definition, is an arbitrary line drawn in the sand.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Is it arbitrary? I thought roads were designed to convey vehicles at a particular speed and engineered to a maximum speed, hence the speed limit. I.e. "look we've designed this part of the road so you should be able to achieve 50mph in good conditions, but any faster than that and you could get into trouble because we're not expecting you to go faster".