It has bothered me for some time that the great success of current road safety campaigns in reducing speeds has not translated into reductions in fatalities - in fact quite the opposite. This seems, at first sight, counter-intuitive.
My journey yesterday gave me an idea as to why this could be so. I had to travel from Wycombe to near Watford for a Baptism. There was some urgency, in that we needed to be there for an 9:30 start and Sunday mornings are not conducive to early rising. The route was the A404 to Junction 18 of the M25 and then the A41 past Watford.
The A404 is a main road, but you wouldn't know it. It goes through or past several built-up areas and the limit varies, sometimes 30, 40 or NSL 60. It became apparent that several drivers had not the slightest idea what the limit was. Many drove at 40 in an NSL stretch. Most drove at 30 in the 40 limits. I thought at first that this was "Sunday driver" syndrome, but on reflection I recall seeing it on other days and, in any case, they were too accurately holding 30 or 40 to suggest anything other than sticking to the wrong limit.
Now, I'm not a speed freak (no, really), but I did need to get there promptly as I was going to be a godparent, and on several sections the road is perfectly safe IMHO at its 60 limit and there was no real reason for dropping to 40; the cars and drivers looked in good health etc.
I am wondering whether these drivers are so paranoid about being ticketed for 30 in a 40 or 60 in a 40 that they assume a lower limit to provide a safety margin? In which case, they are encouraging people behind them to get frustrated and take a marginal overtaking opportunity? This then increases the risk to both drivers.
To make matters worse, the local Road Safety Partnership has recently made part of the A404 more dangerous by putting big signs up reporting the fatality figures over recent years and exhorting us to slow down. This is making a lethal mix of paranoid 35-ers who slow still further for each bend and overconfident youngsters who dash along at 60 because that's the limit. The latter meets the former and gets VERY aggressive. With me in the middle, usually...
I also wonder whether the black and white NSL sign should be replaced with a sign that actually says 60 or 70. Many people seem vague when questioned as to what the NSL actually is, so they may be defaulting to 40 to avoid a fine.
Thoughts anyone? Do I have a point or am I barking up the wrong tree?
|
>>I also wonder whether the black and white NSL sign should be replaced with a sign that actually says 60 or 70.
Agree absolutely.
I never cease to be amazed by people who just do not have a clue as to the meaning of this sign, when travelling in a car with them.
The only problem is that this would be an invitation to the powers-that-be to limit dual-carriageway stretches of otherwise single-carriageway roads to 60 - as it's not worth putting up extra signs.
I'm sure NW will be along in a moment to agree with you that people should speed up...
|
I believe there is a fear of being caught when speed cameras appear. The A65 near Leeds is a 40mph road and now has cameras - traffic now rarely goes above 30mph (a result for the s************ partnership) and on one occasion I followed a vehicle which did 25mph for 2 miles and still used his brakes when the camera white lines appeared.
The bypass near me is 60mph and then 70mph, but lack of observation and no knowledge of what speed limit applies even when they do see the NSL sign, compounded by the fact there are lines but no camera on the 70 stretch, sees drivers doing about 50mph slamming on as soon as they see the lines. This will eventually lead to accidents.
|
|
|
I'm sure NW will be along in a moment to agree with you that people should speed up...
well, more like ten minutes :)
I think that patently may have conflating two rather different issues here.
The first is the problem of some cerebrally-challenged drivers not knowing what the NSL signs mean. I see two possible solutions:
a) better education/compulsory testing/ban on stupid ppl etc
b) using a sign saying the speed instead of the NSL sign ... but one of the handy things abt the NSL sign is that it allows the national limit to be varied without having to chnage zillions of signs
The second problem is those drivers who insist on maintaining a high speed by overtaking when it's not safe to do so. I'm sure that patently had left enough time for his journey and didn't need to be one of them: the difference betwen 60mph and 40mph over 20 miles is only 10 minutes. The danger comes from the overconfident youngsters, who obviously need more driving lessons (possibly in the LART cupboard).
|
the NSL sign ... allows the national limit to be varied without having to chnage zillions of signs
When was the last time it was changed? It's been 60/70 for as long as I can recall.
OK it changes when a central reservation appears. I'm not sure if that's what you mean, but there are signs to tell us about the change to D/C so surely they can add a 70 sign?
The second problem is those drivers who insist on maintaining a high speed by overtaking when it's not safe to do so.
For the record, I didn't overtake as there was (IMO) no safe opportunity to do so. I waited until our paths diverged. I posted elsewhere on the BR re unsafe overtaking.
I'm sure that patently had left enough time for his journey and didn't need to be one of them:
Well, it was one of those mornings . We left enough time, and locked up, set the alarm, strapped them in, and then noticed he has his trainers on not his shoes. Unlock, disarm alarm, fetch shoes, set alarm, lock up. Then his sister needs the loo. And so on!
The problem arises where you don't want to be too early. The journey isn't long enough to justify staying overnight. It's long enough to get delayed, though. And whilst we could have set off at 7:30, (a) I might have nodded off in the service, and (b) what do you do with two tiny children for an hour and a half in an empty Church? Especially when you know that the wait will be followed by a BCP Baptism, est 1.75 hours? As it was, they only just put up with the service (bless them...)
the difference betwen 60mph and 40mph over 20 miles is only 10 minutes.
We arrived with 6 minutes to spare. So adding your 10 mins and the 15 spent fiddling on the drive with shoes etc, I had planned 30 mins in hand for a 35 minute journey.
Now, without faulting your arithmetic, I question its relevance as it only applies after the event. Sitting in the car at the time, I don't know what lies ahead. It could improve; it could get worse. It's already been pretty bad...
the LART cupboard).
Can you illuminate me as to what this is?
|
>> the LART cupboard). Can you illuminate me as to what this is?
Sorry, it's a reference to the computer techies' favourite cartoon, BOFH, i.e. the B. Operator From Hell. If you spend too much time talking to computer techies, then sooner or later you have to get them to explain this or the conversation ceases to make any sense at all.
The BOFH's eternal moan is that is life would be much easier without the users: the premise is that the system would work fine if the operator didn't have to deal with it being messed up by users, who get termed lusers (bad pun alert). The LART is the Luser Attitude Readjustment Tool ...
|
|
|
|
|
No you are not barking up the wrong tree - it can be very frustrating.
However, it must also be remembered that a speed limit is exactly that and not an instruction.
The person doing 40mph on a 60mph stretch is not breaking any laws, inconvenient though it may prove to other drivers.
However, I would take a different attitude if it was, say, 20-25mph.
|
The person doing 40mph on a 60mph stretch is not breaking any laws, inconvenient though it may prove to other drivers. However, I would take a different attitude if it was, say, 20-25mph.
I'd say the opposite, and agree with patently. If there's a car doing 25mph you can generally overtake quite quickly and safely, if it's doing 40 (is it just me that sees them stick to 42mph?) then you need to hang around for ages for good visibility while cursing the lack of 400 bhp
|
|
|
"The person doing 40mph on a 60mph stretch is not breaking any laws, inconvenient though it may prove to other drivers."
IIRC, they might fail their driving test for so doing. Can't remember the wording, but something to do with making progress with the flow of traffic.
It's on my mind as, only this morning, I followed a flat capper through a NSL at 25mph. He ended up with a line of vehicles following, yet seemed surprised when I pulled out to overtake. No doubt he felt he was safe and that I was reckless.
V
PS. Some form of RPG behind my headlights might well be the solution.
|
|
|
The person doing 40mph on a 60mph stretch is not breaking any laws, inconvenient though it may prove to other drivers.
Oh yes, certainly. And if they were doing 40 because they correctly felt that 45 would be unsafe, I'd back them up to the hilt. But their strict adherence to 40, spot on, regardless of changes to the road conditions, suggests to me that the driver is not choosing 40 on safety grounds but is in fact intending to take the speed limit as an instruction. He just gets the limit wrong....
So, the 40 in a 60 driver is arguably less safe because he is effectively asleep, thinking that he is safe because he is within the limit and therefore doesn't need to look outside. He certainly isn't thinking about speed and he isn't even observant enough to realise the limit is in fact 60.
Whereas the driver doing between 40 and 60 in a 60 is safer* because he is looking at the road, thinking, reacting to changes, and setting his speed accordingly.
----------------------
*well I hope so, anyway!
|
Surely the person doing 40-60 in a 60 should be paying attention to what's going on and if he/she is then the driver doing 40 regardless won't be a hazard at all.
The problem is that people often drive too fast for the conditions (whether that be weather or traffic) and then wind up blaming those who were going slower for getting in the way and causing an accident. If everyone was driving correctly even the person who slowed down sharply for a non-existant speed camera wouldn't be a problem or a cause of evasive action because those following behind would be far enough away/apart to slow down safely. Surely that's the reason we have things called stopping distances.
|
|
|
|
Agree with Stuartli. When we drive on public roads our behaviour should take account of other road users whether they be driving at, above or below the speed limit.
In any given set of circumstances, just because I may feel safe/ justified doing the limit doesn't mean the next driver will/should/can do so. Is it fair to expect everyone to drive at my speed just because I want to and it's more convenient for me if they do too?
The speed limit is the maximum speed deemed safe under ideal driving conditions not (despite what many motorists seem to believe) the speed everyone has to drive all the time regardless of what's going on around them or what they judge their capabilities at the time to be.
Agree that the NSL sign is confusing however and feel it should be replaced with clear, unequivocal signage.
|
"The speed limit is the maximum speed deemed safe under ideal driving conditions "
But set at the most dangerous point over a very wide area, so it is too low (below the 85th percentile) for the majority of the area which it covers.
|
|
|
Volvoman, as I said in reply to Stuartli, I would agree with them wholeheartedly if their choice of 40 was for safety grounds. And, when it has been so, I have respected that decision to the point of being tailgated viciously
But it often doesn't look like that.
|
|
|
Agree with Stuartli. When we drive on public roads our behaviour should take account of other road users whether they be driving at, above or below the speed limit. In any given set of circumstances, just because I may feel safe/ justified doing the limit doesn't mean the next driver will/should/can do so. Is it fair to expect everyone to drive at my speed just because I want to and it's more convenient for me if they do too?
As mentioned, I agree (largely). Except that I apply it both ways.
When "stuck" behind someone going slower than me, if that seems to be validly justified by the conditions, their vehicle, their circumstances (say, extreme age..) then I will respect their opinion and seek to get past safely or not at all.
However, it is also common for someone to catch up with me. In those circumstances, I try to review my assessment to see if my lower speed is wrong. If so, speeding up is an option. If not, I will try to let them past. They have a different opinion; I should respect that whether it be one direction or the other.
Others seem to disagree with me. When behind me and going faster, they tailgate before I have had an opportunity to let them past. When in front of me and going slower, you can see them moving to the middle to try and block an overtake. You can almost sense them thinking something non-complimentary about BMW drivers - instead of thinking about the road, of course.
The climate of opinion today seems to be that it is right and proper to disagree with another driver if you think a slower speed is appropriate. The converse however is irresponsible and aggressive...
|
"The climate of opinion today seems to be that it is right and proper to disagree with another driver if you think a slower speed is appropriate."
I wonder if this has a parallel with the yobbos who, having been taught by their leftie teachers that motorists are entirely responsible for global warming, decide that justice will be served by eliminating a few by dropping bricks on them from motorway bridges?
|
Perhaps the brick dropping is a stupid person's variation on pooh sticks?!
teabelly
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Many people seem vague when questioned as to what the NSL actually is, so they may be defaulting to 40 to avoid a fine.
Not in my experience of questioning clients.
It is not a question of what the speed limit is - 40 is the slowest you can do in top gear, ergo, 40 it is.
Even in 30 limits, of course.
|
40 is the slowest you can do in top gear, ergo, 40 it is.
Nonsense. My Bora 1.6 will pull quite strongly in fifth from 20mph upwards and maintain 30mph quite happily in a 30mph zone.
I was advised manym many years ago, to observe "Speed in the right place, at the right time". It still applies - even more so in fact - today.
Driving down your local high street at 30mph at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon could be very dangerous, yet at 3am it would be completely (as near as is possible) safe.
As for possibly failing a driving test for doing 40mph in a 60 mph, all the driving tests in my town are conducted in 30 mph zones with perhaps a short stretch of 40mph zone.
The problem with the do-gooders who believe that speed cameras prevent accidents, is that they fail to realise/acknowledge that you can be killed by a car travelling at a very slow speed if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
There have been numerous incidents, for instance, of people being killed or seriously injured on their own driveway because they have not been seen by a spouse or partner.
|
40 is the slowest you can do in top gear, ergo, 40 it is.
>Nonsense.
Yes, of course it's nonsense.
But it's what the "40 everywhere" camp believe.
There is a slow, grudging, acceptance of the 3rd gear in 30mph limits advice.
viz:- www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=109&i=7861
|
Its not anything to do with safety or judgement.
The A41 goes through Waddesdon and if there was ever a place where the 30 mph speed limit was warranted, its there. Cars and pedestrians all over the place. Either end of Waddesdon its 60mph.
Suprisingly often you will follow some fool at 40 in a 60 all along the main road. But he'll then continue doing 40 all the way through the 30 mph limit of Waddesdon.
Clueless gits who should not be allowed out on their own, never mind in a car.
|
Oh - the A41 through Waddesdon. Know it well. Agree entirely. 30 is sometimes too fast.
What is even more irritating is that there are one or two good overtaking spots after Waddesdon. But you can't use them - they got so far ahead of you in the 30 limit that you are still catching up with them. By the time you catch up, you've reached the twisty bits and have to sit behind them.
|
So we're all agreed then?
Educate the "sheep" to slow to 30 in villages (even if that means getting out of their beloved top gear).
If they won't be educated, install a camera in all such villages.
This would result in
1) them being safer
2) the village being safer
3) the "sheep" being easy to pass after village(s)
|
As I've always said, if they made the speed limits sensible you could put cameras every 100m over the whole country as far as I'm concerned.
Its getting the speed limits sensible that worries me.
|
|
|
...And all we'd have to do to implement that is :
Step 1: Remove 99% of the cameras
Step 2: Re-install them at 99% of the places that don't currently have one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
