Safe Speed Forums

Fred

That was a hypothetical question.
In any case, there are plenty of places where they've recently reduced the speed limits on perfectly safe dual-carriageways from 70 to 40, or even 30 - for absolutely no good reason. So, no - I don't think that the 20mph scenario is too far removed from reality. And I've heard more than one MP talking about 100mph limits as well.

What have I got against 70mph limits?
They were introduced as a 'temporary' measure in the sixties following a spate of motorway crashes in thick fog (nothing to do with speed then) at a time when most ordinary cars couldn't even reach 70mph.
It's now completely different, and it's a pretty safe bet that if the limits were strictly enforced then pretty much everyone would do precisely 70mph.
If you've spent much time on any motorway then you will no doubt have noticed how lorries generally seem to be bunched up into convoys, some with mere inches nose to tail. And you will also have noticed just how long they take to pass one another. Perhaps you've even thought, while watching one lorry labouring past another for ages with a couple of feet separating them, "What if one of them has a blowout, or one of the drivers even sneezes? There'll probably be an almighty bang, followed by complete mayhem" Or perhaps you've thought that they could be spaced out a bit more, after all there's miles of clear, wasted roadspace ahead of the convoy.
This is all because lorries are electronically limited to 56mph - they cannot go any faster.
Now think of three lanes of cars on the motorway, all too scared to go slightly over the 70mph limit, and none willing to give up an inch of their hard-won space.
Can you picture that?

Cheers
Peter

I thought they were introduced because certain car companies were using Motroways as test tracks. AC Cobras and the ilk caning it up motorways at 140+mph was thought a bit unsafe at the time.



Isn't this the principle that works quite well on the variable speedlimit sections of the M25? I was always under the impression that to get maximum capacity from roads (especially motorways) vehicles had to travel at approximately the same speed to counteract the ghost-traffic-jam effect (i'm sure we've all experienced this!) caused by wildly varying speeds.

I think you are wrong. The authorities by concentrating, as they are, on the lowering of speed limits and thier rigid enforcement are removing the correct (or safest speed) limit from the road (the 85th percentile) , and by it's rigid enforcement are failing to look at the reason why 95% of all collisions happen.

And if this policy works, why are KSI's going up?

So only you have the right to explain your position?


Ahhh, good old ad-hominem then. Now we know what we're dealing with

No it won't. In the few days since they started their speed enforcement there have already been four serious accidents that I know of. All but one involved lorries and at least two people have died.



Do you ever eat mince pies on Christmas day? If you do, you're breaking the law.
Do you practice archery once a week? If you don't, you're breaking thelaw.
Does your wife ever eat chocolates on the bus or train? If she does, she's breaking the law.
Have you ever accidentally stuck a postage stamp bearing the Queen's head on a letter upside down? If you have, you've committed treason - for which the penalty is death.

I could go on for ages.
Do you wish to see these laws rigorously enforced?

Cheers
Peter

Now I know what I am dealing with - someone who does not understand basic english

Peter

Thansk for making me aware of these other laws - now I am aware of them I will obey them

Fred

Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion!


I've always thought that the lower the speed the safer the speed (in it's most simplistic sense), but I know that doesn't sit well with people on here so I won't go down that particular cul-de-sac! Surely it can be argued that they should be looking at why collisions happen AS WELL as rigid enforcement.


I'm not sure that KSI's are going up. One side produces stats saying they are, the other produces different stats saying they aren't. I don't know if the policy works or not, but you're right they should be looking at the causes of these crashes. And you're wrong, they should be enforcing the law.

Couldn't agree more, old chap.
Which is precisely why it's important not to have bad laws which breed disrespect for the law.

Cheers
Peter

Hmmm.. Fred mate, if you're going to demean someone's "intelligance" (sic) it might be a good idea to proof-read your efforts before hitting "Submit".


I'm glad that you think it's "fine" to exceed 70mph, but I thought you were against speeding?

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

I've also heard that story, however whatever triggered it, it was brought in as a temporary measure - and is still with us four decades later.
Someone 'thought' it was unsafe at the time.



Not in my experience they don't. I generally try to steer well clear of the M25 because every time I'm on that road I end up sitting in a queue.
Once I stood in one spot for the best part of twenty minutes, almost under gantry signs displaying '40' - and that was after spending a week driving around Germany and not being held up once, despite the traffic being very heavy.
I've spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out how variable speed limits are supposed to smooth traffic flow - even to the extent of writing computer simulations, but I've gotten nowhere.
The theory of travelling at the same speed will only work if:
1) Everyone is doing precisely the same constant speed for the entire distance
2) Traffic enters the motorway at only one point, and at a precisely constant rate
3) Nobody enters or leaves the motorway anywhere but at the start and finish.
4) Nobody ever changes lanes.

It will only work if all four of these conditions are satisfied. If not, then constant speeds actually make the situation worse.

Cheers
Peter

No, that is something "Both Sides" agree on, mainly because it is very hard to avoid http://www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html these are Govt figures.

I think if you properly read Safespeed’s arguments and aims you will see that the aim of the campaign is primarily to return to and develop the methods of policing which brought us the safest roads in the world.

Before the introduction of remote enforcement, speed detection and enforcement was almost entirely the domain of the traffic police officer, who was suitably trained and experienced to recognise the offenders who needed to be spoken to.

As Patch and all the Bib on this forum will also tell you, through experience we have the added advantage of knowing what kind of driving causes collisions, also the type of driving which causes the most consternation among motorists, and can deal with each individual incident on its own merits.

The 85th percentile speed on our free moving motorways is about 85 mph. This has not changed much in the last 10 years. We have the safest motorways in Europe. Do we want to make them safer? Yes of course we do.

Is remote enforcement the correct way of doing it?

Camera enforcement strategy on motorways from my experience has been to enforce from 79mph. This is invading the speed range of the normal motorway motorist, and potentially disrupting what is generally recognised from the stats as the safest driving speeds.
If it was able to improve the driving standards of those who are causing accidents, then yes, but there is absolutely no evidence of it doing that.

Our KSI causation stats on the motorway do not bear any relationship with free travelling speeds exceeding the speed limit.
The main causation factors are tired drivers, aggressive drivers, inappropriate driving for weather or road conditions. A little tangential thinking would suggest that extra rigid enforcement might exacerbate these factors.
Exceeding the speed limit does not figure in the stats as a causation factor on its own.

There are inconsiderate speeders who tailgate and drive aggressively, but they can be cherry-picked by trafpol and dealt with accordingly. There are also motorway drivers who drive inconsiderately at whatever speed.

The relationship between speeding and traffic policing has developed over the years. It has generally, from my own viewpoint gained the respect of the motorist for balanced discretion dependent on conditions.

There are a lot of reasons to tolerate motorway driving speeds at a reasonable margin around the speed limit if the conditions allow. The main one is to provide a reasonable flow of traffic past each other at reasonable speed differential. Additionally, if people are travelling at a speed which is correct for their optimum concentration level, then this has an additional safety dividend.

I fear that over zealous camera enforcement will cause the undoing of a lot of good road safety work built up over years and years of road policing.

My only interest is to improve motorway safety and courtesy.

Remote enforcement at 79mph plus will do nothing for either.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

Fine them for what exactly?


You can indeed be charged with causing an obstruction if you drive too slowly on the motorway, but seeing as the planned protest speed is going to be 56mph, this could not be considered too slow at all for a motorway.
If the police do intend to start issuing FPN's for any vehicle that is sticking at 56mph, then I pity all the HGV drivers out there.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

So we now must drive at exactly 70, not above OR below it, in your sick little world. You sound like you have a control freak complex.



So you haven't driven along a 3 lane dual carriageway with street lights, and NO speed limit signs, at 31mph or above, even once in your life. If you have, according to the authorities and yourself, you are a killer driver and serious criminal.

The AC Cobra story was completely unconnected with the incidents that resulted in the 70mph limit - a series of bad multiple pile-ups in thick fog on the M1. The knee-jerk response from Barbara Castle, the non-driving Minister of Transport, was to impose the 70 limit. Utterly illogical as high speed was not a factor in the original accidents - just the usual killer, inappropriate speed - but, as today, she was seen to be doing something. In terms of comparative car performance, 70 then was probably equivalent to about 120 now.

The AC Cobra thing occurred (if I remember correctly) some several months earlier - AC Cars had tested a Le Mans car at 4am on the M1. You have to remember that in those days the peak traffic on the M1 during the day was about the same as it is at about 3am now - ie "quiet".. At 4 in the morning it would have been virtually deserted. The problem came about because some time later the "Daily Mirror" found out about it, and with the usual restraint of a tabloid reporting on what was to all intents and purposes a non-story on a "slow news day", splashed "180MPH ON M1!!" (and probably "BLIMEY! WHAT A SCORCHER" as well! ) all over the front page.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

A good interesting debate. Some facts have been made that I wasn't aware of. I agree that the speed limit on some roads, to my mind don't make sense, but we all know, or should know, what the speed limit is on that particular road. Agree?

Somebody earlier said that he was done for doing 70 in a 50 which had previously been a 70. There would still have been a 50 sign up at the beginning of the new limit. A similar thing happened to me, a 60 became a 40, and because I drove the road regularly I didn't see the new speed limit sign, so I can see his point there. Fortunately I got away with it.

Broadly speaking, Fred is making a lot of my points for me, I'm not very articulate. OK the figures say that. if I've read them correctly, only 3% of accidents are speed related. I can't argue against that. What the other 97% are I don't know. Stupidity probably. But whether we like whatever the speed limit is and ignore it because we feel/know that we can exceed that speed limit safely and then get caught, we have only ourselves to blame. You are not forced to speed, it is voluntary!!!

I know that there are lots of other ills on the roads, tailgating being my particular hate, which has been pointed out will never get caught by a camera unless it is mounted on a police car.

Disjointed response I know but the best I can do

You didn't answer my question.
Do you want to see those laws being rigorously enforced?

Just a couple of points here. Firstly, in my part of the world, once you pass your test, you are restricted to a 45mph speed limit and your vehicle must dispay an R plate for one year. So it's perfectly o.k. to drive at that speed on a motorway.

Secondly. If you were to take an IAM or ROSPA Advanced Driver's test, the examiner would ensure that you observe all speed limits (weather and traffic conditions permitting). Otherwise, on a motorway, means exactly what it says. You could quite easily fail if you don't drive at on a motorway. I drove at the speed on an M-Way under a ROADA instructor's tuition. And I loved it!

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.

It's a bit subjective though isn't it? I mean Safespeed has a fair few members/supporters, but there's got to be quite a few people out there who don't share their/your opinions and think of the speed limit laws as "good" and therefore worthy of respect.



Again this is subjective, it is based on your experience (which I'm willing to believe is greater than mine, I hasten to add!). From my time working around South London, I thought it worked quite well.

Sorry Pete, I think it's just going to be better to agree to disagree.

Thanks for confirming why 70mph was originally introduced though. You learn something new every day!