Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Jun 04, 2026 05:10

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 16:22 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 09:16
Posts: 3655
And as usual BRAKE have a dicky-fit. No change there then. If ever you mention speed they are there like a bad smell.

80 limit on motorway

Quote:
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."

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 16:35 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 14:00
Posts: 1271
Location: Near Telford, UK / Barcelona, Spain
Gizmo wrote:
And as usual BRAKE have a dicky-fit. No change there then. If ever you mention speed they are there like a bad smell.
Quote:
"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..."

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

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 17:36 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 09:16
Posts: 3655
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.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 17:37 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339
Quote:
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.


But if they raised the limit, 80mph wouldn't be illegal. That's the whole point! :roll:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 02:10 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 09:44
Posts: 516
Location: Swindon, the home of the Magic Roundabout and no traffic planning
pogo wrote:
Gizmo wrote:
And as usual BRAKE have a dicky-fit. No change there then. If ever you mention speed they are there like a bad smell.
Quote:
"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..."

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


I was just thinking that, or maybe tea leaves.

The only answer to that is prove it

:?

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:53 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:34
Posts: 55
Location: SE
BRAKE have been set up because of concerns about road safety. I think they provide a worthwhile service to many people. However, their fundraising/awareness tactics are soft hitting:

'If an aeroplane dropped out of the sky, killing 140 people, there would be a national outcry. Yet most people are unaware that this number of people die on UK roads EVERY FORTNIGHT. '

Umm, yes. Of course their would be a national outcry. There would be an investigation. Rightfully so. But it is incomparable when talking about herding togething the number of victims from motorway accidents. What a ridiculous statement. Let's not even go there with people being slaughtered in wars, or genocide, or the Holocaust (wasn't much outcry then).

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

Not sure about the statistical research, as I have seen contradictory research which shows the number of people being killed on motorways has reduced, and that has been a long trend. I shall try and find them for you.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:09 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Winston Smith wrote:
Anyway, BRAKE have got in right in some places. For instance campaigning for 20mph speed limit outside schools is very sensible.

Part-time ones, maybe, 24/7 ones certainly not. Yet do BRAKE oppose these? Basically they are using children as foot-soldiers in the war against the car.

I accept BRAKE was originally founded with a genuine motivation to campaign for road safety. Yet nowadays they generally seem to be against drivers full stop - see, for example, their recent disgraceful remarks suggesting every motorcyclist is a child killer.

It is worrying how many companies in the transport industry continue to sponsor what has basically become an out-of-control anti-transport campaign.

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:20 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Winston Smith wrote:
Anyway, BRAKE have got in right in some places. For instance campaigning for 20mph speed limit outside schools is very sensible.


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.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:27 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 09:01
Posts: 1548
PeterE wrote:
see, for example, their recent disgraceful remarks suggesting every motorcyclist is a child killer.

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 :lol:

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 :wink:

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 16:48 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 17:15 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 14:00
Posts: 1271
Location: Near Telford, UK / Barcelona, Spain
mpaton2004 wrote:
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

Interesting... I've just "cherry picked" a few of the "facts" quoted in the letter..

For example, "Garber & Graham 1990" who apparently showed that the increase in speed limit from 55 to 65 also increased fatalities, were proved wrong in 1993 by "Lave and Elias" who used G&G's own data amongst other to show that there was actually a decrease in fatalities of 3% - 5% depending upon individual states.

Still quoting the non-RTTM assumptions for casualty reduction at camera sites.

The "higher speed limits at night" paragraphs seem to bring alcohol into the equation...?

etc.

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

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 17:29 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 09:16
Posts: 3655
pogo wrote:
I don't honestly know who PACTS are, but they sure write a load of cobblers - but it looks very authoritative.



http://www.pacts.org.uk/

Quote:
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.



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

Quote:
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.

Spot on...!

Maybe SafeSpeed should join. That would realy piss BRAKE and Toontown2000 off.... :lol:

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 17:39 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 16:12
Posts: 1040
Location: West Midlands
Try the full heavyweight version 108 pages.

http://www.pacts.org.uk/Policing%20Road%20Risk.pdf

Some repetition of BS figures (OK quite a lot), but some hints that they are questioning the effectiveness of certain policies.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 17:57 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 18:39
Posts: 346
Gizmo wrote:


PACTS: AKA - B.S. Central

Notable that 'sport2000* rely SO heavily on them for their 'facts'.

*Illegitimate spawn of B.S.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 18:20 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:34
Posts: 55
Location: SE
SafeSpeed wrote:
Winston Smith wrote:
Anyway, BRAKE have got in right in some places. For instance campaigning for 20mph speed limit outside schools is very sensible.


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?


*


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 18:32 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 17:00
Posts: 169
Location: Leicester
Winston Smith wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Winston Smith wrote:
Anyway, BRAKE have got in right in some places. For instance campaigning for 20mph speed limit outside schools is very sensible.


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?


*


Sensible drivers will moderate their speeds in such times and places anyway. In many cases even 20mph will be too fast.

For me as a driver the main motivation for choosing a safe speed is the wish to avoid an accicdent. Adding a legal constraint to that would not make any difference to the safe speed outside schools at busy times.

What it will do is cause drivers to slow unnecessarily at times when the kids are not around, simply to comply with the law. At such times doing so will add nothing to safety.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 18:36 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:34
Posts: 55
Location: SE
I hear you.
The only trouble is that not all drivers are sensible.
Of course, most of us would reduce our speed, be extra wary of little sprogs jumping out between cars etc..

I'm not massively up for legal enforcement either.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 19:05 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 01:42
Posts: 686
A 70mph limit, loosely enforced and an 80mph limit, tightly enforced amount to just about the same thing. It's a case of splitting hairs.

BRAKE are probably going with the "a 10mph increase in the speed limit will result in everyone driving 10mph faster" way of thinking.

This stems from one of the biggest contradiction of speed limits - The Authorities tell us that speed limits are supposed to be LIMITS, not TARGETS, but the same Authorities are setting them as though they are targets. Speed limits are increasingly being used as a "everyone drive at this speed, please" signal and are therefore being interpreted by drivers as such. The variable speed limits on the M25 are a perfect example of this.

Use of speed limits as target speeds has resulted in this stupid game (that we all play) of keeping your vehicle in the little 5-8mph "window" between annoying the driver behind and risking your licence. It's very sad that speed limits, a once invaluable safety tool, have been reduced to this.

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 20:42 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940
Gizmo wrote:
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.


I think lieber IG got it right when he commented that this "research" ist probably some spotty oik's thesis for doctorate from second rate university :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: It was words to that effect only my lieber cousin watered it down to be "tactful" - only we know the real man :twisted: :wink: :P

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien
!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 20:59 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 00:06
Posts: 301
Location: Swindon
Gixxer wrote:
PeterE wrote:
see, for example, their recent disgraceful remarks suggesting every motorcyclist is a child killer.

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 :lol:

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 :wink:


I don't know about you, but I'm STILL a cocaine snorting sex-fiend. Its far easier than child killing - the little buggers keep knocking the mirror over! :D

Incidentally, have you noticed how hard it is to get the blood stains out of modern carpets?

_________________
Smokebelching,CO2 making,child murdering planet raping,granny mugging,politically incorrect globally warming (or is it climate changing now it's getting colder?)thug.
That's what the government want you to believe of me. If they get back in I'm emigrating.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.061s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]