Safe Speed Forums

This is a different argument, and one that is worth having.

The problem is that there are virtually the same number of opportunities to wipe out a bus queue at 29mph as there are at 31mph.

You might argue that at 35 or 40 or 45mph the opportunities to wipe out a bus queue increase and therefore we should have set a limit "somewhere".

I don't disagree. But the IMPORTANT limit is the one that says: "don't drive at such a speed that you threaten a bus queue." The problem with your position is that the number of incidents where bus queues are wiped out at 29mph may well increase if we concentrate on the speed limit "too much".

After all, it's never the speed in miles per hour that threaten the bus queue. It's *always* the driver's error. And since very few bus queues are wiped out in a year the risk of driver error becomes by far the most important.

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

Ah yes, but a straw broke the camel's back. You may argue that, in an individual case, 29mph is the same as 31mph, but the law deals with the collective cases, not the individual one. And collectively we have set the line in the sand at 30. So why defend those who ignore that? And if there is a reason, where do we draw the 'real' line? I would have absoluetly no problem setting the limit at 31 mph, as long as people don't whine then about getting caught doing 32. Then I'd set the line at 32, and I'd still have whingers saying they were done at 33!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Listen. Tens of millions of cars each day pass bus queues without wiping them out. Tens of millions of them are probably speeding.

A couple of times each year some reckless idiot wipes out a bus queue.

It makes NO SENSE to attack the majority who conduct themselves with appropriate safety.

It makes perfect sense to attack the reckless few idiots.

Why can't we do that instead of placing false priority on an artibrary number that clearly isn't at the centre of the problem?

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

No one is being attacked, these are just piddly little warnings and they get enough of them. Just think about it. Without well-known limits, how could you tell that it was recklessness, and not just 'a little over the limit'. Where would the line be drawn? Answer me please - who would decide and on what grounds? Is it just a matter of opinon? Well, that just doesn't cut it in a lawful society, I'm afraid, because part of the purp[ose of the law is to publish a common view of what is expected of everybody. The alterantive is random law, like the wild west.

_________________
I stole this .sig

RE: Without well-known limits, how could you tell that it was recklessness, and not just 'a little over the limit'. Where would the line be drawn? Answer me please - who would decide and on what grounds?

Easy - look at the definitions for:
inconsiderate, careless and dangerous driving.

Collectively the common theme is the manner of their driving or riding falling below or well below the standard of a reasonable motorist.

Given that the reasonable motorists exceeds the limit regularly (although legally it's the hypathetical motorists who drives according to the highway code). Exceeding the speed limit is not in itself inconsiderate, careless or dangerous.

However, we have case history that sets a view that 2 x the speed limit = dangerous. Which is a shame, because it cannot be so (take an NSL with a new 30 limit) 2 x the new limit = the old limit.

The old system of 'creaming off' focused on those who drove much faster than everyone else and resulted in around 250,000 convictions for speeding each year. There is good evidence to support that those who drive much faster or much slower than everyone else are more likely to have an accident.

Nope. That's nonsense. We had well known limits in (say) 1985. Road safety worked well, we had the safest roads in the world and one of the fastest rates of improvement. Society generally was LESS lawless.

The speed limit laws are a useful guide and a useful proxy to help identify reckless behaviour. They are NOT a code for safe driving, but that's what they are being elevated towards. It isn't safe...

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

Never mind all that, John Peel's dead! My earliest recollections of him were as a DJ in the 70's. He more or less single-handedly kicked out that prog-rock bunch of beared has-been bands. Thank goodness he did, or we'd still be listening to Genesis or (God forbid) Gentle Giant.

Oh, sorry, I'm off-topic. I should have said 'listening to Genesis or (God
forbid) Gentle Giant on our car tape players'.

_________________
I stole this .sig

If you are driving at a standard, that you lose control you are driving in reckless manner.

If you are driving at a speed, which is safe, and you do not have any accidents, then that is the best indicator that your judgement is correct.




Boxer engines are terrible, that design should be scraped & you should of had the engine serviced

_________________
Steve

Years ago, i would of agreed with you, however we are now seeing perfectly safe stretches of road having the limit lowered and a scamera put in place.

How can a road that was safe to drive on for years at a speed of 60 mph, now be dangerouse at any speed above 30 mph

It does not add up

_________________
Steve

Of yes, it's possible to know that you are driving in reckless manner. But how do you know when someone else is? How would the judge be sure?



OK, we have to wait until someone crashes, and then we can assume they were reckless. Is that it? Hm... OK. I suppose the best indicator that someone's judgement is not correct is when they nail the lid down. But is there a way to find out before someone crashes?



Thanks for the free advice. It would have been useful 20 years ago!

_________________
I stole this .sig

I quite agree. The "laws are fine. The enforcement methods and the publicity aren't fine at all, and many speed limits are no longer properly set.

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

You will only know when it is too late




That is exactley it nowadays, it used to be the case that we had plenty of traffic police to feel the colars of bad drivers, this is no longer the case. It is now the responsibilty of the speed camera.

Their is NO monitoring of driving standards, no limits to what vehicles we can drive.

That ugly little box, that sends you a fine within 14 days. Which is rather too late, it has no effect on what is happening on the road at the time.

If someone is driving reckless, they do not care about being caught by a speed camera, they proberly have not even got the car registered to them.



NO



Your welcome, mine is an inline 4, far superior

_________________
Steve

Indeed - a fine bike for a tutonic dominator, although the boxer has a better macho image.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Mine is an all singing all dancing LT ( a real mans bike)

Makes the boxer look like a monkey bike

_________________
Steve

I've only ridden 2 BMWs recently one was a K1200 RS - which given that I'm a BMW hater (daft switches), I must say I was suprised how light and nimble it felt.

worth the money? no, but impressive definately.

The other was an R1100S (boxer cup replica with under seat exhausts).
Sadly it siezed at approx. 70 mph. (and I wasn't thrashing it gov. honest)
Both bikes were demonstrators and both were new.

Sadly the experience of the second (nearly high sided) meant it will be a long time before I ride another BMW, but I would agree that the K is far superior.

How about this: excessive speed - within and above speed limit - directly or indirectly causes a negligeable proportion of accidents (say). However the severity of outcomes is indisputably directly related to impact speed. So, whether you recklessly flatten a bus queue at 30 or 50 mph the result is not the same. What I am saying is this - who cares that the cause is not speed if the outcome is strongly affected by it? So it may not be right to talk about speed causing the accident but it is valid to say that speed causes the outcome to be worse.

All that remains to prove is that a reduction in speed can be achieved without too much adverse effect on other factors that influence safety. Say we can show not hypothetically but in real life that a particular device results in reduced speeds and at the same time in reduced severities of accident outcomes that cannot be attributed to another effect (e.g. a side effect such as a reduction in traffic volume). Then this device is clearly the way forward, at least in terms of safety.

The argument that is not worth having (BW) is what people ought or oughtn't do. They might just do it or not do it anyway regardless of what the imaginary effect of a particular device is that is designed to make them or stop them doing it. Or the unintended negative consequences may be too high a price to pay.

On topic - someone has a front tyre blow-out at say 95mph on motorway, loses control and flips the car over a few times. Undoubtedly more likely to bring the car safely to a stop from 70mph? Or at least loss of control at 70 would result in less damage.

ad

_________________
DO NOT PANIC

Not really - it is still reckless behaviour - you are not CARPing enough. That is our new catchphrase by the way - found in a French site as PARC - but "BOF alors" whatever .....

CARP!

With a bit of luck the Prats may really talk CRAP! (yeah - wife thought of that one .....)

Er, going back to first principles here - some crashes are primarily caused by inappropriately high speed for the circumstances.

In some of these, the speed is too high for the physical characteristics of the road, e.g. coming off while negotiating a bend.

In others, the speed is too high for the hazard density, in the sense that it does not take account of the possibility of unexpected events occurring such as pedestrians walking out into the road and vehicles emerging from side turnings.

All of these crashes are primarily caused by inappropriate speed, in some of them the inappropriate speed happens to be above the posted limit.

Reference was made earlier in the thread to reckless behaviour being the primary cause of a crash - but surely selection of an inappropriately high speed may be a manifestation of reckless behaviour.

_________________
"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

Where the actual speed of the vehicle caused the crash?

How about..cresting a rise in the road at a speed which causes the vehicle to lose traction on the road (becomes 'light' on its suspension).
Did this on a motorbike once....not funny. Have recollections of my arse being a couple of feet off the seat, hanging onto the bars with grim death staring down at the instruments from an angle I'd not experienced before, least not whilst riding the thing

The faster you go, the less likely you are to get away with no accident when you are in a tight spot or if you misjudge. Failing that, more loss of control would on average mean more damage. Failing that, if it does flip, it flips more times. If, after flipping, it crashes, it crashes, on average, harder. I hope nothing in that contradicts SafeSpeed’s agenda. He might argue that the emphasis isn’t right, and that the enforcement policy isn’t right, but I don’t think he would argue that most drivers are as safe at very high speed as at lower speed.

So what else is there to debate? There is always the great divide – what constitutes ‘very high speed’ and how can you judge an individual case in a sea of accidents and emergencies, and what is the most cost-effective way forward with millions of accidents over the life of a parliament? I suppose we could say, instead of speed kills, that 'Relatively high speed is more likely, on average and taking all things into account, to result in more damage, injury or death than a lower speed". But it is so obvious that it (surely) doesn’t need saying and has no impact at all, and does no good.

I'm also interested in the politics of this question, though. This is not the only area where technical measures are used to implement a political choice. What is special about speed that makes you say that we should not argue about what people . That is politics, after all! We can make laws about what people ought and ought not to do, and enforce the laws technically.

_________________
I stole this .sig