Safe Speed Forums

A Euro MP has admitted he usually drives at "just under 80mph" on motorway runs.

Road safety campaigners said the comments, by Conservative East Midlands Euro-MP Roger Helmer were "irresponsible", and accused him of setting a bad example.

Mr Helmer, who drives a Jaguar, made the admission as he spoke about Government plans to crack down on drivers who break the 70mph motorway speed limit.

Ministers are thought to be considering the moves to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which increase with speed.

In a letter to the Mercury, Mr Helmer said ministers should not "persecute the motorway driver" and said enforcing the limit would not solve environmental problems.

He said: "My car, a diesel S-type, delivers well over 40 miles per gallon on long motorway runs, and I usually set the cruise control just under 80mph. In urban and mixed driving, it delivers fuel consumption in the mid-30mpg."

Today, Mr Helmer said "a great deal" of drivers sped on the motorway, and called for the limit to be raised to 80mph. He said: "No matter how fast you're going, you get people passing you. There is research that a great deal of drivers break limits on motorways.

"There has to be a speed limit - I'm not proposing we end up with a system like Germany - but the law should be on the side of people.

"The Conservative Party policy at the last election was to raise the limit to 80mph and I agree.

"It is careless driving that causes accidents, and they cannot be just blamed on speeding."

Mr Helmer said he had received three points on his licence after being caught doing "about" 38mph in a 30mph zone.

When asked how far under 80mph he usually went, Mr Helmer said: "I can't say. I could get into trouble.

"You could class 70mph as just under 80mph."

However, Mr Helmer said he had lost a brother in a road accident about 50 years ago and had a "great deal of sympathy" with families who had lost loved ones in car crashes.

A spokeswoman for road safety charity Brake hit out at Mr Helmer's comments.

She said: "Speeding is illegal and speeding drivers put lives at risk through their selfish, dangerous actions.

"Brake is strongly opposed to the idea of raising motorway speed limits.

"Research shows increasing the limit to 80mph would cause an increase in casualties - causing more families to be devastated by road death or injury each year."

She said that during 2004, 164 people died and 1,137 were seriously injured in motorway crashes across Britain.

The news comes in the week Leicestershire police warned motorists to slow down in the icy weather. Today, a police spokesman said: "Speeding is unacceptable and Leicestershire Constabulary will not tolerate the blatant disregard for traffic regulations, particularly when the safety of other road users is compromised."

A Tory Party spokesman said: "We cannot condone breaking the law.

"However, statistically, motorways are the safest roads in the country.

"A Conservative government would therefore launch a review of all road speed limits, with the possibility of raising limits on motorways to 80mph when safe and lowering to 20mph near schools and hospitals."

And as usual BRAKE have a dicky-fit. No change there then. If ever you mention speed they are there like a bad smell.

She said: "Speeding is illegal and speeding drivers put lives at risk through their selfish, dangerous actions.

"Brake is strongly opposed to the idea of raising motorway speed limits.

Hmmm... They been examining the entrails of goats again??

Anyway, BRAKE have got in right in some places. For instance campaigning for 20mph speed limit outside schools is very sensible.

Anyway, BRAKE have got in right in some places. For instance campaigning for 20mph speed limit outside schools is very sensible.

see, for example, their recent disgraceful remarks suggesting every motorcyclist is a child killer.

I sent an email to BRAKE asking what the source of their research was:

This is what they sent back:

http://www.pacts.org.uk/parliament/brie ... ollins.htm

I don't honestly know who PACTS are, but they sure write a load of cobblers - but it looks very authoritative.

The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS) is a registered charity and an associate Parliamentary Group. Its charitable objective is "To promote transport safety legislation to protect human life". Its aim is to advise and inform members of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords on air, rail and road safety issues. It brings together safety professionals and legislators to identify research-based solutions to transport safety problems having regard to cost, effectiveness, achievability and acceptability.

It is in this context that the controversial question of roads police numbers
should be considered. As mentioned earlier, there has been a long term decline
in the overall number of roads police:
• Numbers of designated traffic officers fell from 15-20% of force strength
in 1966 to 7% of force strength in 1998.
• Between 1996 and 2004, total traffic officer numbers fell by 17%
• Between 1999 and 2004, operational traffic officer numbers fell by 21%
• Support staff numbers for traffic policing have risen by 242% between
1999 and 2004.
These numbers have been used by opponents of speed cameras to argue that
cameras have replaced roads police, and that this makes the roads more dangerous
rather than safer. If this were the case, it would be a worrying example
of an unintended consequence of new technologies.

Check this out....
http://www.pacts.org.uk//research/PolicingRoadRiskPaper.pdf

Is it? How many children are killed outside schools? And would 20mph speed limits save any lives at all? What's the evidence?

I strongly suspect that it's a 'sounds good' policy with no basis in science or fact.

SS - I don't know stats for any of what you're asking, I could find out. Anyway, it sounds like a sensible idea because;

* The probability of hitting a child would be higher outside a school.
* 20mph does involve a comfort factor and it's a considerable one.
* Why would it be such a bad thing? We already have road signs telling us that elderly people may be crossing the road.
* Perhaps a sign would suffice?

Either way, something should be sorted, as the amount of vehicles on doubles, people, kids walking all over the place - I would see it as an unsafe environment and even more unsafe if people could travel at higher speeds - especially when car doors are opening and shutting, and people are pulling away without indicating.

Does anyone have ideas on this?


*

That "Research" word again. I am sure they just make stuff up and pretend there is evidence to support it. The should be made to provide the source. Probably find it was a study done in 1937.

At least that makes a refreshing change from 20 years ago when we were all coke snorting sex fiends who preyed on teenage virgins while eating live chickens

If the powers that be had done their "research" properly at the time, they would know it is nigh on impossible to eat a live chicken while coked up, as cocaine suppresses the appetite