Safe Speed Forums

The main thrust of the SafeSpeed website is road safety. It sites, rightly IMHO, that artificially low speed limits and rigid enforcement of them, is making our roads overall less safe.

In the interview on SafeSpeed Radio earlier today, Richard Brunstrom identified a non-safety-related reason for reduced speed limits, viz, noise abatement.

Is it possible that some of the recently reduced limits have been given this treatment in deference to local residents? If so, is there more of a case for policing to the numbers - even using Specs cameras - and with a notice at the start of the stretch stating clearly the reason? I think personally that would reach greater sympathy among SafeSpeed followers. If true, it would certainly make me more sympathetic to the cause.

This noise argument sounds good at first but on closer examination is flawed.

With the warm weather, I have opened my windows and can hear the traffic in my street more easily. By far the most noisy (if you don't count the brain dead with vast stereo systems) are white vans being driven in low gears. These are going much more slowly than cars - perhaps only 15mph past my house. How will speed limits solve this?

Bye-the-bye, it never ceases to amaze me how many white vans with ladders on the roof etc. are being driven about late at night. If these are trade vehicles this doesn't seem to make sense.

Victor Meldrew

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

I don't mind if there are speed limits for 'social' reasons. But it isn't worth paying a price in blood, and it's highly illegitimate to endorse driving licences when a 'speed limit' only exists for a social reason.

On the 'paying a price in blood' point - I'm thinking about a speed limit that increases risk by one (or more) of the methods that we frequently discuss.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

More noise or fewer bodies.... Shouldn't really be a tough call, should it? Besides, it comes right back to the vehicle improvement argument again. Cars have, we're told, got quieter over the years, and if we're all in electric or fuel cell vehicles in twenty years (which I doubt) then they'll get a hell of a lot quieter. In any event, if I find myself living near a noisy road as far as I'm concerned it's my fault. We rejected two houses we liked for noise (one overlooked a motorway and one had a train go past the back fence while we were looking round the garden ) and ended up under the Concorde flight path instead . My fault entirely, and we learned to live with it in the end and missed it as soon as it was gone.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Hi there. After seeing this thread, I felt I wanted to say something.

I personally have got rather tired of residents wanting speed limits reduced on nerby roads because of "noise". The simple fact is, if it annoys you that much, then you shouldn't have moved to where you are living in the first place.

I can sympathise perhaps in a couple of cases, for example when someone has lived in a house for, say over a few decade, and has seen nearby traffic increase by a lot. But even then you could always wear earplugs when sleeping or something like that.

It isn't quite like "more noise or fewer bodies" is it? The artificially lowered speed limits and rigorous enforcement driven by safety and with the global message it is aligned to safety are the body-increasers aren't they? If this is globally applied - as it seems to be at the moment - the body count will go up. If it is in specific built up areas for social reasons, the global message of "keep your eyue on the needle wherever you go" - which IMO is the main problem - will not be an issue, will it?

incidentally, before anyone thinks I have a personal axe to grind, I live so far off the beaten track that two cars going past in 20 minutes means someone's throwing a party in the village

Point taken mate, but you knew what I meant I hope.


I think I see what you're saying, but correct me if I'm misreading you here. A reduced limit needs to be sold to drivers who use the road, and they're more likely to go for the noise reduction tack than the "speed kills". Problem is that with the current style of enforcement either will still require a lot of speedo watching. Why I'm having to watch the speedo is less important than the fact that I have to, and what that effect that has on the quality of my driving.

Thinking about it a bit more, I'm also fairly sceptical of the noise reduction thing anyway. If noise was so high on the agenda virtually every traffic calming scheme would be being ripped up as we speak. I haven't listened to the Brunstrom piece yet so I reserve the right to eat my own words here , but it sounds a little like a new straw to grasp at.

BTW hi & welcome Madroaduser.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Yup.

Yes, agreed. However, if enforcement is Specs-based (don't getr me wrong - I HATE those things, but just *if*), needle-gazing would not be needed if one kept it down to there or thereabouts over the distance, Specs systems average out so the odd minor transgression in a mile stretch wouldn't matter a jot.


Yes - the two don't go hand in hand somehow. Mind you, I believe the humps and artificial chicanes should all be removed anyway.


Echo that - welcome to newcomers.

I hate 'em too, but personally i find of all types of auto-enforcement I am most forced to speedo gaze by SPECS. The Notts ones were a bloody nightmare - me and God knows how many others around me all trying to keep to an average speed of (er... memory going) whatever . Driving to the conditions went right out the window, and I didn't feel safe until I'd got away from the hateful things. SPECS on the motorway wasn't so bad as I let the cruise keep my speed legal and kept my mind on driving - about the only time I've felt happy with the cruise in charge of my speed. But the Notts SPECS almost made me think fondly of Gatsos.

Oh my God... did I really just say that?


Likewise, though I'm still interested in what Bunfight had to say. You managed to get it going with RealPlayer. Any ideas, 'cos it's not working for me?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I just clicked it and it went.

I tried again 30 seconds ago and got a "general error". When I oked that, real player was still there on the desktop. I hit the "play" button and it worked again. I'll cross post this for Paul. Try it though - OK the error then hit the "play" button on Real.

I'm afraid I wouldn't read to much into this statement - don't forget Brunstrom is a man fighting for what's left of his career, especially his ACPO role (Head of Roads Policing Business Unit - as businesses are there to make money, that title kind of gives the game away really) and he's looking for a last ditch attempt to do a kind of "I'm on your side really mate" act with the public. He's also pronounced that some speed limits are "bonkers" (too low) but I'd be fascinated to know how many "bonkers" limits his force actually objected to. But then again this is a man who thinks we should legalise heroin....

True, traffic noise can be a cause for complaint in some villages (mine included) but this is usually due to more traffic using ratruns because the local council has totally buggered up main routes - round here, especially with traffic lights where a mini roundabout would do the job well and cut journey time by half...

_________________
Never point a speedmeter at a civil or military aircraft, vessel or armoured vehicle. Many military aircraft, vehicles or vessels have target acquisition detectors, some of which initiate automatic counter measures.
Association of Chief Police Officers

I'll carry on with that bit over there then.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein