Safe Speed Forums

Er... 85% of them are acting within the 85th percentile rule

That's what I mean't by most

Didn't want to make it sound too obvious

Andrew

[quote="tim.tonal"][quote="speed kills"]And at 70mph there isnt even a whole body to bury.

What does it take for some people to grow up?[/quote]

Just a minute - isn't 70mph a legal speed for a car on a motorway or dual carriageway?

Trains go a lot faster you know - imagine a cow straying on the line in front of a 140mph express - a derailment would cause carnage! But hold on - trains have a superb safety record ... and so do motorways - and many if not most car drivers break the speed limit on the motorway at one time or another![/quote]


A. Maybe they should cutr the speed limit to 60!

B. Well you can see that on the news.

What are people saying , that its safer to go faster?

It's *always* safer to travel at a speed that's appropriate for the circumstances.

That's a really really serious answer, with a lot behind it. See:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/why.html

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

Too many people drive too fast though, that is why they can get away with putting cameras everywhere.

If there wasnt any laws about speed, and just left it to the drivers to go as fast as they pleased....... Do you honestly think they will be driving at a safe speed?

Why not take away all the rules, the police and live in an ultra liberal society? Will everyone just love each over?

Too many people need too many rules.

Cameras should really be deployed and made plainly visible - at the danger sites.

We do at least target our really dangerous areas with high profile and highly visible mobile set ups.

We are also very visible in our lethal biking "corridor" - only to find some of our hard core like to lose us.....

Where we can - we educate ... seems to have some impact on aggregate.



The majority would continue to drive with same level of common sense and competence as they do already.....is my overall suspicion.

People have a self preservation instinct - think most will settle for nice healthy-ish 80-85 mph max which appears to be the routine speed measured on 70 mph stretches around us anyway. Tend to stop 85 mph plus - and give warnings and advice at present. Really "naughty" drivers at above 90 mph .... we are - in their opinion - of course....

But our problem lies in education for some in 30mph zones. This is where we do have more serious problems road safety message-wise. Denser population and more hazards...

If you like - the speed cams etc should be clustered around these vulnerable areas. All too often - they are appearing anywhere but where really needed.



No - we do not need "too many rules" because then we get weighted down by this.

We need small number of bite size simple rules - and common sense approach to enforcement and punishment. Rules which will take account of level of danger and enforce and punish accordingly.

Your view is far too simplistic. The vast majority of motorists can and do select appropriate speeds accurately, safely and reliably. Road safety depends on this behaviour.

Of course there are nutters who need the attentions of the Police, but the number isn't that great - a few percent of drivers - maximum.

There's nothing wrong with the law, but the degree of driver attention required to achieve continuous precise speed limit compliance is far too great. We need a degree of intelligent flexibility, and we need a system that can tell the difference between a responsible motorist at a safe and appropriate speed and a nutter at an inappropriate speed. Traffic officers can do this. Cameras cannot.

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

I think this was tried in Montana or somewhere in the US. Well, not ditching allrules obviously , just the speed limit on certain types of roads. IIRC speeds didn't go up much but accidents went down, didn't they? Anyone have the details? I'm a bit short of time right now.

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

Here's one report:
http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm

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

Thanks Paul. That's what I read before, though I hadn't got it quite right. Still, the point is it dents the "obvious" idea that a lack of a speed limit means anarchy. Interesting that speeds were actually lower on occasion than on equivalent roads that did have speed limits. I'm not sure what that tells us... perhaps there's a greater tendency to drive to limits than conditions than we might think?

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

In the Northern Territory of Australia most of the outback roads are UNRESTRICTED, NO SPEED LIMIT, just like parts of Germany and yet the NT has the lowest incidence per kilometer travelled of road deaths in Australia.

How can this be?????

Could it be that people find the most comfortable speed to drive at and are therefore awake, alert and aware?

Surely not, we MUST put speed limits in place to SAVE lives. (Tongue firmly planted in cheek!)

The figures do not lie, the Northern Territory is the safest place to drive in Australia and yet at least 90% of its roads are unrestricted.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

Lower the speed limit Mr. 'Speed Kills'. Suggest you try driving from London to Glasgow at 60 or less on motorways and dual carriageways then tell me how safe you felt grouped in alongside all those HGV's governed to 56, all driving too close. Or you could try overtaking them at a slow crawl causing even more congestion! Hope they check the blind spot cos there may be nowhere for you to go if they slip up and pull out to overtake! Or would you be too asleep to notice!

I take it you don't drive very much these days! You certainly give that impression!

Could it be that traffic density is lower? After all, one of the major reasons for speed limts is to manage contention.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Is it? Is that your own theory or did you read it somewhere? (serious question!)

Would you care to justify it? I'm interested...

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

Of course - there is no theory in this, it's plain. Imagine a road system without contention. Such as system would mean that each user had enough road space that interaction with others is impossible. For instance, a scelectrix with one car on it has no contention. No external speed limit (or any other coordination controls for that matter) are required because the only risk is to the one car. If the driver crashes the car, it's his or her own look out, after all, we are (nominally) responsible for our own actions.

Now, if we introduce another lane and another car, and perhaps one of those sections where the track narrows. And maybe even a cross roads and such like. Now systematic rules and controls are necessary because contention happens and the vehicles interact with each other. That is what the highway code is mostly about – it lays out a protocol of behaviour to manage scarce road resources in a systematic way.
Now, out in the boonies in Canada or Australia, you might drive for quite a while without contention, essentially you are the one car on the scelectrix kit. If you value your own life, and with the absence of other vehicles, you could be safer. Of course, there is nothing to stop you creating your own danger, by driving into ditches, trees and boulders and such like! Accidents seem more likely to happen in conjunction with other vehicles, pedestrians and what have you, i.e. competing road users.

I have a scare story about this. On the highway between Vancouver and Calgary, I stopped for petrol, and pulled out on the left hand lane! Luckily, there was absolutely no contention at all on that stretch of Highway 1, and for a mile or two I ran up the wrong side of Canada’s main east/west artery! Only when a logging truck came nearer and nearer on ‘my’ side of the road did it finally dawn on me that I was in the wrong.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Very interesting, I'm sure, but absolutely nothing to do with: "After all, one of the major reasons for speed limts is to manage contention."

I accept there's contention. I accept it requires management. But I don't accept that speed limits manage it. After all flying across a give way or a red light at the speed limit would provoke contention in a very big way wouldn't it? Neither have I heard anyone else make your claim.

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

Speed limts can be used to manage congestion though. If electronically altered to suit the conditions ahead, they can reduce turbulence and stop/start quite substantially by gradually slowing things down a fair way back from the inevitable speed reduction (whatever that is for).

basingwerk,

The roads in South Australia, which borders with the Northern Territory, have a maximum speed limit of 100kph (60mph). The traffic density is no different for hundreds of miles before the border but the limit is 60mph AND there are more crashes!!!

My point was that speed is not the issue. On either side of the border there is no difference in the weather conditions, or the vehicle, or the road, or the driver. The only difference is an arbitrary speed limit that is set for the southerners.

So.... what is the problem with travelling at 120mph in the same conditions south of the border? How is it that it is safe on one side and not on the other?"

"Speed" does not kill, inappropriate speed kills! If I were to drive at anything over 60mph from the onset of sunset on either side of the border I would be playing Russian roulette with the wildlife. During the day they rarely stray onto the road because it is too hot but when the temperature starts to drop they start moving.

Inappropriate speed (over 60mph) at dusk/night would most likely kill but 120mph during the day is extremely safe.

In these outback areas of Australia the distances are V A S T so the speed MUST be at a pace that involves the driver or he/she will get bored and start to fall asleep.

Am I wasting my time or are you beginning to see my point. The speed limit south of the border does NOT make it safer, in fact more people fall asleep and crash south of the border than north of the border so obeying the speed limit KILLS!

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

I'd have thought the traffic density on both sides was not far off bugger all. Great place for white line fever, but I imagine north of that border drivers are able to vary their speed which helps keep them alert. I expect in SA they're too worried about radar to chance it.

Must look weird when you're heading south in the middle of nowhere and suddenly there's a 100kph sign miles from anything else.

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

Even more amazing is crossing the Nullarbor plain - 300 miles of straight road and a 100kph speed limit with police cars hiding in the scrub and planes circling overhead to book you at 110kph.

BTW I mean a 300 mile straight ie no bends. A mate of mine left Perth heading for Adelaide and put the destination into his GPS directory thingy and was told "turn right 430kms" and that was the first turn he encountered.

I truly believe that the biggest killer on that road IS the speed limit not the "speeding" driver.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!