Safe Speed Forums

Only in a very broad sense, and even then there's a substantial margin of error. It's not as if a road is acceptably safe at 49 mph, but really, really dangerous at 51 mph. A design speed also cannot take account of differences in driver ability, vehicle characteristics, weather conditions, presence of other road users etc.

In any case, I believe British motorways usually have a design speed of 120 km/h

Also, in general, urban and suburban speed limits are dictated by hazard density, not by road geometry.

_________________
"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

How does a far less frequent occurrence on our safest of roads relate to, or bolster, your argument? If you introduce a hazard on any road you’re going to have a very dangerous situation so why don’t we talk about where this is actually happening and how effective flashing signs are, if at all?

Personally, I think more tin-ware will simply be absorbed into the collective mass of countless other useless bits of road furniture or clutter and drivers will just start to ignore them in the same way I ignore much of it.

A motorway, by any other name, is not so different to an Autobahn or many dual carriageways which also have a limit. That speed limits vary from road to road is also testimony to the fact that circumstances should dictate what is a more appropriate speed for the road but they cannot possibly take into account the conditions.

So by enlarge, out of necessity, speed limits are used as a blunt instrument because they can’t afford better measures or means of safety.

_________________
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.

Like the Holes Bay Road in Poole, engineered for 70mph, speed limit 30mph?

I take issue with this, especially if aimed at me.

I have said in the past that if a pedestrian steps out in the path of, and subsequent is run over by, a vehicle that was within the speed limit on approach to the scene, then the pedestrian must bear at least some of the responsibility. You cannot assume a pedestrian is trained well enough to know what is 'too fast for the conditions'.

I have never said the driver in that situation would automatically be blameless, even if they were within the limit. A driver not doing all they can to evade the collision, or driving faster than one can reasonably expect to be clear, would also bear some of the responsibility.

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

Are you seriously suggesting that if we cancelled all speed limits there wouldn't be an increase in crashes and the severity of them?

I don't believe there was any such suggestion.
Are you strawmanning again?

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

Did you read this bit:



Nothing to do with safety?

I did read it; did you understand it?

The insistence that a law must be abided by "because it is the law" is in itself all to do with strict and mindless legal compliance, regardless of where safe limits are.

If I may expand on the typical quote from the 'speed kills brigade' to give you additional context:
"It does not matter that you can do it safely, the law says you cannot." - any issue of safety is inherently completely dismissed.

You quite wrong to claim that as "there wouldn't be an increase in crashes and the severity of them ... if we cancelled all speed limits" as the 'speed vs risk' relationship was not raised.

Toltec is, again, exactly correct.

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

I don't understand.

Safe Speed does not oppose limits right?

But asking drives to comply to a speed limit is nothing to do with safety?

Right!


It need not be, which is what is being discussed here: "because it is the law".
In this case, the basis of that statement is purely for the lawful compliance, not for safety.

"It does not matter that you can do it safely, the law says you cannot." - is this statement dismissing the safety aspects: yes or no?

The wording "because it is safe" (instead of "because it is law") would have implied something relating to safety (let's not pull apart that statement, it is only an example; this isn't what is being discussed)

Do you understand now?

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

Hmm, I'd seriously suggest that intimating that the legal requirement to adhere to speed limits is nothing to do with safety is a bit of a stretch.

Noooo

It is about compliance of the legal requirement in itself - adhering to the law purely for the sake of the law.

Evidently you still didn't understand - or perhaps you did

I ask again:
"It does not matter that you can do it safely, the law says you cannot." - is this statement dismissing the safety aspects: yes or no?

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

I'm pretty sure the OP asked for something well-substantiated.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Weepej, Modern speed limits have nothing to do with safety and are being dropped on the whims of local residents, in many cases, even when the accident rate is less than half the national average, so how does that factor into the the idea of yours that speed limits are designed on a safety basis?

_________________
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're right there.

Too often we have been told that just a few MPH over the speed limit turns us into killers. I want to know why this is, or what justification people have to think it is.

The closest thing I have seen to justification is research such as this: http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/speedandspeedcameras/speedingresearch.html (posted by dcb in another thread). Now, I know that this research is full of holes, which invalidate the conclusions. But this, and similar, research is all the 'speed kills' brigade have. Their entire case stands or falls on it.

I must admit, the numbers are damning. Just 5km/h over the limit doubles your risk of a serious accident.

Or does it?

So, weepej and others, are you prepared to defend it?

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

Yes, I must admit if you look at this in the way that speed limits are being cut, you would then expect that if a limit has been cut from NSL to 40MPH, as in many parts round our way, then you would expect that the risk of having accidents has been cut by a factor of 12 but I will bet any money that the accident rate hasn't been cut by a factor of 12. In the same way if the limit was raised from 30MPH to 40MPH you would then expect people travelling at 40MPh to have approx six times the risk of an accident but does the accident rate go up by a factor of 6...not likely!!!

_________________
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.

Did I post that? I certainly will not defend it. It is a weasle in that the first sentence says "Research has shown that the risk of a crash causing death or injury increases rapidly, even with small increases above an appropriately set speed limit" (my bold); but then goes on to assume that that proposition can be applied to any speed limit. And it fails to point out that travelling below an appropriate (i.e 85th percentile) speed limit results in a similar or greater increase in risk.



It is certainly out of line with the original research by Solomon et all which established the 85th percentile criteria -http://www.dropbox.com/gallery/7839435/1/Temp?h=4f20f6. Not a very good print but it is clear that the relative involvement rate doesn't double until some 25kph above the minima; and more than triples for the same speed below the minima.

Of course that is research from a foreign country in two senses - 5000 miles and 56 years away - and might no longer be correct.

S

_________________
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

Two reasons why, from that paper, you wouldn't expect that. First: all those figures are relative to an appropriately set speed limit , which I take to mean one set to the 85th percentile, so that simply reducing the limit to an inappropriate value will make all the results meaningless. Second: the Solomon curve, to which I linked in my reply to Pete, shows that the relative risk increases both above and below the appropriate speed

_________________
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

I think it appropriate to point out that the increased risk resides with the drivers who choose to drive at these speeds above or below the 85%ile, and not with the speeds themselves.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Perhaps unintentionally so, but you did, here



I would suggest that the proposition is false, regardless of whether or not the word, "appropriately" appears in the sentence.



The Kloeden et al paper referenced in 'your' link does attempt to refute the Solomon et al paper, but fails due to its own shortcomings.
But it came as a gift to activist groups and enforcement agencies around the world. Here, at last, was the scientific evidence they were waiting for that 'speed kills'.
It's almost a pity that it's so wrong.

MFL also takes it apart, here

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