On Radio Two this morning they gave the following quote, attributed to the RAC;
"We are in a speeding epedemic caused by motorists driving believing they will never be caught"
Thank you very much, RAC.
|
|
the RAC really are poor, and seem to have been highjacked by the political anti car lobby
|
Next thing, they will insist on tracking chips in credit cards to make credit card theft less attractive to thieves.
Of course it would not be so they know where we are at all times......
The above is said tongue in cheek, but nothing would surprise me now.
|
|
Sorry got my carrot and stick the wrong way around.
|
|
|
Next thing, they will insist on tracking chips in credit cards to make credit card theft less attractive to thieves. Of course it would not be so they know where we are at all times...... The above is said tongue in cheek, but nothing would surprise me now.
It does, Its called chip and pin, or a stripe, so it can be tracked where it is used (which is the important part for credit card theft)
Tongue in cheek? heard of RFID tags? little unique radio transponders that can be tracked in any shop, resturant, pub, library, petrol stations etc etc.
Appearing in every item you buy (food, clothes, etc) in the next 24 months. Matched with a credit card it will identify you by your combination of clothes whereever you enter any premises that sells things.
|
[snip]
Don't be silly. Mark.
|
|
Sorry Mark, I know it wasn't motoring but I thought it relevant to the RFID debate?
|
|
Perhaps, but I could just see it causing me loads of trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely
There seems to be no understanding that speed does not kill, stupid or inappropriate speed kills.
30moh outside a school at 3:30pm is very stupid, 60mph at 3:30am is probably not unreasonable. When will the numbskulls in the police and government get this into their heads.
This last week several friends and myself have been the victims of violent crime and the police, who are very understanding, spend more time on catching slight speeders than finding out who those scrotes are.
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
I am very sorry to hear about yours and your friends experiences, I hope none of you are hurt (emotionally and physically) to bad.
On the subject of schools, when was the last time you saw a speed camera or copper with a mobile speed detector outside a school. I personally have never seen one.
|
|
too easy catching people speeding on straight safe roads where the limit has recently been dropped from a reasonable 70 to a crazy 30 by the usual anti car network that has infiltrated our public services
|
|
|
|
|
|
What would you prefer for your 12 points.
1/ A driving ban
2/ A speed tracker.
Think I know
|
Plus, there is the horrific cost of installing and operating all these new measures.
Guess who's going to pay?
|
apparently hidden cameras are going to be fitted into lamp-posts, remotely connected via radio, using digital camera technology so that the film never needs replacing, anyone caught doing more than 30 mph in their local neighbourhood will be sent a fixed penalty, once you have been caught doing 31 mph three times (often in the same day), you will be given the option of having satellite tracking fitted to your body, and you will be required to login into www.youthoughtyoulivedinafreesociety.com requesting permission of where you want to go that day, of course you will need your id card to enter any public buildings, if you dont agree you will be banned from driving and using the local pubs
|
|
|
|
Err... what's to stop a persistent driver with a speed chip in his car from driving another car when he wants to go fast?
What if you buy a 2nd hand car and aren't told it has a speed chip? Then speed?
|
" Err... what's to stop a persistent driver with a speed chip in his car from driving another car when he wants to go fast?"
They will have pre-empted this, that's what they do, propose something rubbish, and then alter it.
We already have RFID chips on the way, 'Smart' number plates (ICTIS) or whatever they're called are already installing roadside sensors as quickly as they can. Every time we read the paper, we hear os ID cards, national database of children, tracking devices, CCTV in all buses and trams, now taxis, yet crime is out of control for reasons blatantly obviuous to all but the government.
I imagine it will be a requirement to carry a SMART driving license at all times in the future, so it won't matter if the car has a tracker, the driver will, then it will be combined with the ID card 'for our convenience and security'.
Once we are complately under control, that is when the neo-marxist final solution will be initiated.
|
Ahhh yes...I understand...the in car card will read the profile on your smart license, and adjust the performance of the car (and maybe where it is allowed/not allowed to go) according to your particular level of freedom. When you go or stop somewhere, the in-car card will be charged for use of the road/car park/facility.
|
If only we knew someone who writes for a national newspaper, they might take up the cause on our behalf and make the general public aware how our civil liberties are being eroded by these daft ideas.
I just can't think of anyone...taps fingers on desk and ponders.
|
I heard the RAC report on radio as well.
This is a pschological battle between the police,parliament and anti-car lobby on the one hand, and the rest of us on the other.
The first round is to get exceeding the speed limit seen as tantamount to murder by implying that all speed limits are set by divine guidance. It seems that the RAC is being brainwashed already. What most motorists have admitted to is breaking the speed limit. This is technically breaking the law. Speeding is not necessarily the same thing. 20mph past a school at end of lessons is speeding, but not technically breaking the law.
The intention of "authority" is to automate raising of revenue by using robotic cameras linked to a database. It has little to do with safety. To police "safety" needs human intervention, a real live experienced police presence. This costs. If this is funded then other "initiatives" will have to go.
|
|
|
|
Err... what's to stop a persistent driver with a speed chip in his car from driving another car when he wants to to go fast?
Hows about the one thing everyone in the speeding debate just ignores?
Most people don't get out of bed and think 'I'm going to speed today!'. It just happens.
I was driving home from Portsmouth today on a mixture of A roads which turned into dual carriageways and back to A roads again. A number of times I found myself creeping up to, say, 65mph on the long, sweeping hills. Obviously I adjusted my speed, but becuase I was busy reading the road ahead, anticipating hazards, watching the person in that junction over there, that 5mph over really wasn't a concern.
Does that make me a habitual speeder? It probably does. Did, at any point in my journey, I make a concious decision to exceed the speed limit? Nope.
It seems they'd rather have us driving around with our eyes glued to speedo's. In a decent, well built modern car it's very difficult to tell the difference between 60mph and 65mph without glancing at the speedometer.
Obviously you get the odd numpty who will decide he is going to go out and drive as fast as he possibly can and it's these guys who are forcing all the focus/measures onto everyone else.
Still, what would I know, I'm just a criminal convicted of the henious crime of doing 80mph on an empty dual carriageway in a modern car.
|
The RAC is being quite clever here.
They are saying speeding is rife and antisocial and murderous and getting worse.
They are also saying this is despite an explosion in speed cameras.
They finalise by saying the only cure is dedicated traffic police.
|
Personally I would be in favour of a Traffic Police section that covered the entire road network, similar to the public transport police but more of them.
At least this way they would not be limited by county borders like they are now, so they could follow cars though the borders.
Organised centrally and trained specifically for traffic situations, but with the same powers of arrest etc, they could really make a difference.
Hugo
|
"At least this way they would not be limited by county borders like they are now, so they could follow cars though the borders."
This used to be the case, but I believe they now continue a hot pursuit and contact the control-room of the area they are entering, whereupon they are usually joined by cars from the new area force.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps there is something in the argument the RAC make, that speed cameras alone are not nearly enough to deal with the idiots amongst us. I detest speed cameras, but only because they have been used as a panacea, and incidentally, a gift to radar detector suppliers. Traffic police have been under-resourced because of a lack of real attention to road safety issues: so well done to the RAC for pursuing the issue against the mob. Somehow I doubt that the RAC have been taken over by liberal, car-hating, rambling do-gooders intent on a Marxist revolution and the end of western civilisation, which seems to be the gist of several over-excited posters:)
|
The great thing about old fashioned traffic policing is that it actually educated the driver on the spot of their wrongdoings. There is no better time to point out a mistake than just after it has been made, not up to 14 days later!
H
|
> The RAC is being quite clever here.
"BRITAIN is in the grip of a 'speeding epidemic'.."
"More motorists than ever are admitting to disorder on the roads,"
"..four million British drivers - do not consider themselves law-abiding, "
"Enough people to fill ten holiday jets die every year on Britain?s roads."
"Motorists know these risks yet choose to ignore them -"
"drivers are speeding undeterred on all types of road, at all times of day, every day of the week."
and the real clincher:
"speed being the cause of one-third of all fatal accidents. "
Sorry RF, but if that was being clever it was far too subtle for the rest of the media to comprehend. All the coverage I've seen and heard today has been further demonisation of the motorist.
"Speed Freaks Verdict on Britain's drivers" - Sky News
"Tougher deterrents are needed to stop the 55% of motorists who admit breaking speed limits every day, says the RAC." - BBC
I agree that some of the RAC suggestions have merit but presenting them in this manner isn't likely to promote reasonable debate in the mainstream press.
The RAC have shown their true colours here. My only regret is that I am not a member so I can't call them and tell them where to shove their membership.
>Somehow I doubt that the RAC have been taken over by liberal, car-hating, rambling
>do-gooders intent on a Marxist revolution and the end of western civilisation, which
>seems to be the gist of several over-excited posters:)
I'll judge their intentions by their actions, thanks.
Kevin...
|
"There are about 30m vehicles in the UK, which has one of the best road safety records in the world, says the RAC."
"The RAC said extreme measures were not practical,"
"It suggested graduated penalties, compulsory re-training and education after a speeding ban, more traffic police, and in-car "black box" tracking devices for repeat or serious offenders."
All from the BBC
Yes we can all selectively quote!
|
>Yes we can all selectively quote!
So which have been given most prominence ?
Kevin...
|
|
The RAC is one breakdown service among many, no better or worse than the others. Anyone who disagrees with their stance on motoring and is a member should vote with their wallet, making sure they write to tell them why.
|
Guess whose RAC membership is up for renewal shortly.
Guess who will not be renewing...
|
|
Did, at any point in my journey, I make a concious decision to exceed the speed limit? Nope.
Probably not, but it does imply that you didn't make a conscious decision to obey the speed limit. That could be done by keeping eyes glued to the speedo, or by driving at a slightly lower speed to leave room for a little slippage.
|
by driving at a slightly lower speed to leave room for a little slippage.
Frankly, why should I?
Excessive speed is indeed dangerous. But on a motorway, say, 71 is not excessive. If it were, then 70 would be as well. Thus, the slippage does not make a driver dangerous per se. That is why it should not be enforced.
I admit, I wish to make progress. This is because I am busy. I want to get to work early so that I can do work, send bills to my clients, and meet the latest demand from the Inland Revenue. I want to get home to see the little patentlys and spend time with them - little patently no 1 wants help with a tricky Lego kit at the moment. Is this wrong of me?
Why should I drive at 65 so that my speed is in the 64-69 range just because enforcement is mechanical and unthinking, when aiming for 70 and achieving 68-75 is no more dangerous?
|
|
Here Here, Patently, watch the road, not the speedo!
|
|
|
>>71 is not excessive. If it were, then 70 would be as well.
Now I am not supporting the 70mph limit, but your logic troubles me.
So, 71 is ok, then why is 72 not ? Its only 1mph more and if 72 was unsafe so would 71 be, and if 71 was unsafe so would 70 be....................120 is ok because its only 1mph more than 119 which is only 1mph more than.....more than....etc.
There has to be a line somewhere. Wherever that line is 1mph more will always only be a little more. But it is still more.
And saying 70 mph is ok /- 10% means that 77mph is ok and 78mph is almost the same.
70mph is the speed limit or it is not. If it is the wrong speed limit, then don't change the enforcement of it, that makes a mockery of all, change the limit.
And clearly a single limit for a road in all conditions will forever be illogical.
|
Mark,
Plenty of philosophers have dealt with your problem. They don't really regard it as an issue any more.
The point is that there is a material difference between 70 and 100. There is no material difference between 70 and 71. Hence enforcement strategies suited to a driver caught at 100 are not necessarily suited to a driver caught at 71.
|
Hence enforcement strategies suited to a driver caught at 100 are not necessarily suited to a driver caught at 71.
Ok, agreed.
100 & 71 should be treated differently. And, presumably 99 & 72. I guess 98 & 73 are different also. But where do you draw the line ? 85 ? If so, does that mean 86 is treated one way and 85 another ? Why, there's only 1mph different ?
>>Plenty of philosophers have dealt with your problem.
I don't think so. The last philosopher who started talking to me about my problems ended up in counselling for some years.
I have this terrible pain in all the diodes down my left side, you see.
|
|
|
|
Frankly, why should I?
Because the limits are set for a variety of reasons, including safety, and because they apply to you as well as to other drivers.
I admit, I wish to make progress.
[snip]Is this wrong of me?
It's not wrong as an objective, but it depends how you achieve it. Where you go wrong is in deciding that you don't want to follow the clear rules.
Why should I drive at 65 so that my speed is in the 64-69 range just because enforcement is mechanical and unthinking, when aiming for 70 and achieving 68-75 is no more dangerous?
Because, as Mark says, there is always a cut-off point. If you think the limit should always be 75, argue for getting it raised ... but I suspect that you'll then be complaining that it's too hard to avoid doing 80.
And if you think it should be variable, then argue for the deployment of lots of gantries displaying these variable limits, with all the infrastructure to determine how that variable limit is set.
But however the margin of error is set, there is a point at which penalties will apply. One of the merits of the fixed upper limit is that everyone knows what that point is.
|
nowheels sometimes u really do talk it
u should talk to an old time traffic cop
the way the speed limit in the not so long off days by real humans made a lot more sense
yes u got the odd bad decision or poor cop, and u probably always will
but their good old human brain was capable of figuring out i) is it minor/inappropriate/dangerous ii) should I have a work or issue notice iii) is this something more serious
the margin above the limit was subject to discretion, which recognised the art as well as the science of driving
sadly younger traffic cops are not even taught these approaches, if there is even a traffic dept in the force where u r, and some much is imposed by political interference
etc
no absolute laws will never work, especially not for speeding, and yes I think many limits are too low, and getting reduced to ever lower more ridiculous levels, yes I think the penalties far and away exceed what is appropriate for minor speeding, but more importantly I want some recognition that discretion is in order
|
Generally I wouldn't argue, but I can't see how it would work these days.
took 20 minutes of reprimand from a copper about not speeding again
Old days: Listened, paid attention, made damn sure never caught by that copper again
Now: report copper to superior for abusive and discourteous behaviour, not to mention failing to follow correct procedure.
accident involving speeding vehicle
Old days: claim on his insurance, get him nicked for speeding.
Now: all of the above plus sue the police force because you found out they only gave him a caution instead of nicking him yesterday and therefore they need to pay for your stress, pain and suffering.
took clip around ear from copper for doing something dumb
Old days: get another clip from Father for complaining about first clip.
Now: Father reports copper to superior officer, sues police, official enquiry, policeman fired for brutality.
|
im on your side on this one
the balance between the cops/teachers/and indeed the local mature adults
and the young out of hand
has gone way too far in a misguided version of a libertarian society which fails to take account of individual responsibility
however the way cops talked to and approached people was out of hand at one point, and they can still be over the top when talking to normally law abiding folk on minor matters
needs real leadership and accountability, not a mass of spreadsheet wielders as at present
|
|
u should talk to an old time traffic cop the way the speed limit in the not so long off days by real humans made a lot more sense
One of the reasons it made sense then was that there were fewer cars on the roads. If you have a road like none ear me where the cars used to regularly exceed the 50mph limit (which is there for good reason, lots of junctions and crossings), you'd need a posse of cops out there every day to have a chance at logging even a small proportion of the speedsters ... but the two cameras can catch them all, at a fraction of the cost. I'd far prefer the cops to be deployed looking for the things which are harder to enforce automatically.
But the other thing that's changed is the cars: your average family car cruises very comfortably at 80mph+ these days and corners much faster, so there's much more capability for speeding.
|
nw
u are just so so so far from a realistic understanding of road safety matter that i think ill bow out
speeding doesnt kill
cars being able to cruise faster more comfortably, corner and brake better, are arguments for the limits to go up
its how much risk your taking versus whats acceptable that is the issue, not how many numbers past an arbitary sign
skill, discretion, good road design, good speed limit setting
and good public education are all needed
sadly as long as people like u wield the levers of state road casualties will continue to rise
|
u are just so so so far from a realistic understanding of road safety matter that i think ill bow out
I'll return the compliment and say that your understanding is remarkably limited. You are looking at road safety purely from the point-of-view of a skilled driver, which is not the only relevant perspective.
speeding doesnt kill
Wrong: it does. Not always, not in all circumstances, but higher speeds increase both the severity and frequency of accidents.
cars being able to cruise faster more comfortably, corner and brake better, are arguments for the limits to go up
It's an argument for an increase on motorways, but not on other roads, not least because car safety is only one of the factors in setting speed limits. It still takes as long for someone to walk across a road, and increasing the traffic speed reduces their chances of crosing safely, or even of crossing at all.
Human reaction times haven't increased either.
its how much risk your taking versus whats acceptable that is the issue, not how many numbers past an arbitary sign
It's not just the risk that the driver takes with his own safety, it's also the risk taken with other vehicles and with non-motorised road users. Given the poor ability of so many drivers to consider those non-vehicular road users, enforcement is needed.
You want enforcement with discretion, but at what cost? A SPECS camera can be installed at a fraction of the cost of keeping a speed patrol car on the road for one year, and it'll have a much higher enforcement rate. Better to automate the speed enforcement, and free up the patrol cars to do the rest of the enforcement.
skill, discretion, good road design, good speed limit setting and good public education are all needed
Agreed. But discretion comes at a heavy financial cost, and even if the price is paid it isn't always appropriate. The road I was thinking of in my previous post has so many non-motorised users and so many blind entrances and exits that it's never safe to do more than 50 -- the last thing I want to see on that road is drivers hoping that a cop will let them off just because it's a quiet time of day.
sadly as long as people like u wield the levers of state road casualties will continue to rise
I don't wield the levers of state. But I'm very glad that they are currently in the hands of folks who are starting (albeit too slowly) to stop viewing speed solely as a matter for the covenience and safety of drivers. That's an important factor, but only one of several at play on our roads.
Quite why you think that limiting speed will increase road casualties is beyond me, unless you are making the common mistake of blaming the arrival of cameras for the removal of traffic patrols.
|
>>unless you are making the common mistake of blaming the arrival of cameras for the removal of traffic patrols
I'm not sure why that would be a mistake. I wouldn't say one caused the other, but it surely enabled and facilitated it if only by distracting focus from what was happening.
|
Quite why you think that limiting speed will increase road casualties is beyond me
Simple.
Reducing a speed limit down to the proper level does indeed make the road safer.
Reducing it beyond that level breaks the spell. People no longer believe it. They start to ignore them. And that makes other roads, where the limit is properly set, more dangerous.
QED.
(The problem is deciding the proper level...)
|
|
|
NW, you are up to your usual trick of noting that a good argument has been raised and quietly changing the subject.
Your question was why not just drive a bit slower, say 60-65 on the motorway, so that natural variations in speed do not push you over the limit.
The answer is that the police effort that would hypothetically be directed at catching the 71'ers would be utterly pointless, as 71 is in reality no more dangerous than 70. Such enforcement would also create disrespect for traffic law and traffic enforcement; pretty much what has in fact happened. Such disrespect is IMHO making our roads much more dangerous, because now that people have stopped seeing 70 (or 50 or 40 or 30 or 20) as in any way a guide, there is no upper limit. That is my point.
As for you latest point, "if not 70 then where", that is a good question. On a motorway (note the qualification), I do in fact believe that I am better at deciding a safe speed than a DoT official in Whitehall several decades ago. I do happen to think the 70 limit is outdated and wrong. My understanding is that my view is shared by most experienced police officers, although I accept that I cannot substantiate this without causing embarrassment.
You suggest that if the limit was 80 then I would just change all my arguments by adding 10. Sadly, you are wrong. When in France, the 130kph limit applied - about 82. I was quite happy to stick to it. Oddly enough, in a higher limit I drove more slowly than I do in the UK. Someone should tell the DoT....
As for where to set the limit, if not at the official figure, this calls for intelligent application of the law. We do not imprison people for dropping litter. We do not impose house arrest merely on suspicion based on secret evidence and without a finding of guilt in court*. Likewise, there is no need to throw the book at drivers at 71. An intelligent enforcer of the rules is quite capable of seeing the difference between a dangerous driver and a safe albeit technically illegal one.
And off the motorway? Well, things are very different. There is much more that can be in your way, even on a familiar road. Personally, I will respect most of the limits; the exceptions are the very familiar roads, and then only with care. What saddens me is that my view seems to be a minority; most have become so accustomed to speed limits being often frankly silly and speed enforcement being only loosely related to safety that the respect is gone. And that frightens me; that is why I disagree with current policies.
---------------------------------
*oh, err... maybe we do.....
|
You suggest that if the limit was 80 then I would just change all my arguments by adding 10. Sadly, you are wrong. When in France, the 130kph limit applied - about 82. I was quite happy to stick to it. Oddly enough, in a higher limit I drove more slowly than I do in the UK. Someone should tell the DoT....
Patently,
It seems to me that you(like most of us) believe that your judgement of what constitutes appropriate speed is infallible.
Now I know(with absolute certainty) that I am a far better driver than you and almost every one else on the roads. Therefore I believe that 122.468mph is perfectly safe for myself and cannot see why I am not allowed to drive at that speed - unless I am eating an apple.
However it is an argument that we elect politicians to make law and pay taxes to employ police to enforce those laws; only those laws should not apply to us two!
C
|
cardew if youre in the usa how much driving have u done here?
im 100% sure the anti-car measures imposed here would last less than 2 seconds in USA
i lived in, and drove around the states for many years
we are run by nutters here
"I am also struck by the degree to which our lives are becoming ruled by a truly absurd degree of politically correct interference." HRH The Prince of Wales
|
|
Patently, you are confusing a lot of different issues.
The first confusion is between the question of marginal enforcement with the setting of the overall limit. I hapen to think there is a good case (though an overwhelming one) for increasing the m'way limit to 80, but wherever limit it is set at, there is still a question of enforcement.
Now, you might prefer that there was no limit at all, but the only place in Europe to have that system seems to be about to remove it. I don't know of anywhere other than Germany which has destricted motorways, so there's little chance of them coming here.
So we're left with how the limits are applied. You argue for flexible, human enforcement, but you continue to avoid the question of the huge cost of human enforcement of speed -- you assume that it's a sort of free alternative, which it isn't. It's much more expensive (and less effective) than automated enforcement, and drags cops away from all the other tasks they could be doing on the roads. Plenty of backroomers rightly want more of that, but we won't achieve it through having several of cops standing around holding laser guns at each camera site.
You might of course prefer that the limits were not enforced at all, but that's a different matter. If you don't want enforcement, it's a bit pointless to argue the how.
You also contunue to argue that "71 is in reality no more dangerous than 70". Untrue: it is more dangerous.
Of course, it's only a little bit more dangerous, just as 72 is only a little bit more dangerous than 71. But add those up, and eventually you get significant extra danger. You can choose to make the cut-off exactly at the limit, or a little over it, but either way there are going to be some folks who could have escaped prosecution by going 1mph slower.
You won't find those folks getting more than the minimum penalty -- just people are not imprisoned for dropping litter, unless they repeatedly drop lots of it.
|
nw
the reasons for mass deaths on our roads are much simpler
most pedestrians who are killed are drunk, speed cameras will have no affect whatsoever on these
poor road design sets death traps throughout the land, a blame the driver culture will never solve this
foreign drivers cause a crazy proportion of accidents, there isnt even an attempt to give them leaflets as they come over on the ferry as to some basics of safe driving in uk
left hand drive HGVs have countless accidents, they just are not safe in this country, the roads are too thin (and getting thinner), and they dont have the visibility
you need to divert your attention to things that will impact road safety, winging on about speed is failing
|
JD, I'd agree with you about some of that list -- lots of things there that need attention. (Though do you have any statistical basis for that claim about drunk pedestrians? And of course plenty of roads are poor designs, many of them were laid out long before cars became popular, and you can't do much about that.)
But that's all the more reason for freeing up resources from speed enforcement, by doing that job in the most cost-effective way.
The only reason that I end up arguing so much here about speeding is because so mnay folks argue that it shouldn't be policed at all, or should be policed in a much more expensive way ... and because even some folks who don't follow either of those routes assume that a safe speed is simply one which doesn't involve them in accident.
It isn't: safe speeds are also those who don't drive other other road users off the streets.
|
speed is the wrong adgenda and it is causing total disillusionment amongst the majority trying to do their best in the world for their familys
if there was a single highway engineer in court for causing death by poor road design, of which there are countless examples, many very recent, or some other sector of society rather than just the drivers, maybe we would have a little sympathy
as it is i can cause countless deaths by getting a job for a council or their consultancies designing road layouts, and be 100% certain i will never be held to account
yet if i drive perfectly safely, all be it a little over the speed limit, there is a very high chance i will loose my licence, my job, and be unable to keep up the rent or mortgage payments
there has got to be some balance
|
JD wrote:
the reasons for mass deaths on our roads are much simpler most pedestrians who are killed are drunk, speed cameras will have no affect whatsoever on these
Actually speed cameras have exactly the same effect irrespective of recent drinking. Step out in front of a vehicle at 40mph, 20% chance of survival, at 20mph 80% chance, drunk or sober - makes no difference.
I've met a lot of people who've survived road accidents with brain injuries. While I'd agree that being a drunken pedestrain is surprisingly dangerous (much more so than urban cycling) I very much doubt the drunks outnumber the young.
|
Can I assume that when drunk your body is more relaxed?
Fairly well documented that the more relaxed you are the less likely you are to be seriously injured, in any sort of accident/impact.
Doesn't help move the debate in a sensible direction, but thought I'd point it out.
And what is the pedestrian doing in the road anyway? All the emphasis on slowing down the 'killer cars', but why no start emphasising the green cross code again and make people realise that there is some sort of onus on them to stay out of the way of cars?
|
NW,
I'm not confusing them; I keep trying to separate them!
Marginal Enforcement
71 is illegal. The driver is open to prosecution.
But prosecuting significant numbers of them does more harm than good. I won't repeat why.
Better to prosecute the one driving at 69 in thick fog.
Cost
I don't recall the exact figures, but about the same number of people die on the roads as die in hospital from acquired infections. This morning the Minister for Health proudly told an interviewer than £135 billion was being spent on this. Now, I don't believe a word he says; that figure is obviously manufactured to impress. But whatever the true figure is, it is clear that huge sums of money are available to patients.
Meanwhile, the road death toll is rising because enforcement is being seen as a place to save or even make money.
What limit?
Wherever you set the limit there will be arguments about enforcement at the limit+1 etc. This is an independent issue.
But, if most drivers feel safe at (say) 95 and the limit is 70 they will ignore it. Having aimed for 95, some will drift to 100 or even 105. NW, I spend a lot of time in the outside lane and see this regularly. By your own admission, you don't.
If the drivers who felt 95 was safe were told the limit was 85, then the scenery changes. To sit at 95, rather than at the limit, their only gain is 10mph. But their risk of prosecution is the same, so the cost/benefit is worse. Many will then drive at 85 instead.
This would have an interesting effect. There would be few drivers in the 85-95 range; those at 95 plus would stand out like a sore thumb and be easy to pick off from unmarked cars. We could then start catching the real speeders.
Reining in many drivers down to (say) 85 would also reduce overall speeds and make the roads less frightening for those that prefer 65-70.
That is why I believe that raising the speed limit will make the roads safer, and why I would agree to firmer enforcement of a higher limit.
Cardew's point
Is quite right. Most drivers think they are above average, which was glibly (and wrongly) described by a pundit as statistically impossible.
This is the reason I commented on non-motorway roads; there, I accept that there is a lot I might not know about, and the posted limit bears much more heavily in my mind.
On a motorway, however, there is (by and large) a controlled and standardised environment. I will not round a blind bend to find a child on a bike. And, frankly, the manner in which the 70 limit was set, it's age, and it's manifest lack of relation to actually safe speeds means that I have little respect for it. So I must substitute something; that something can only be my own judgement, albeit in the light of the judgements of others on the same road.
|
The 70 limit was only set as a temporary measure. NSL A roads used to be derestricted in days of drum brakes so I fail to understand how suddenly were are trying to get them lowered (DFT report out recently) to 50. The danger on nsl roads is now mainly due to the stupid enforcement of the HGV 40 limit. It would be much more sensible to raise that to 50 or even 60 so hgvs could carry on at a reasonable pace and car drivers wouldn't be stuck behind them at 40, overtaking in stupid places or sitting up each other's exhaust pipes frustrated and liable to scream off into the distance the instant the HGV turns off. Has anyone compared the accident rates on the IOM where they still have derestricted A roads?
I think part of the problem are the stopping distances on the back of the highway code. If they were updated to a more modern car then maybe people might just be more realistic about speed/stopping distance judgements. At the moment they look at those and see how ridiculous they are and therefore assume other things like sticking to the prevailing limit is just as ridiculous as limits must have been set with those daft stopping distances in mind so therefore it must be safer for them to go faster as they can stop sooner.
The question is what car do we choose? Or do we have a range of stopping distances, one for a super mini, one for a saloon and one for an suv ? The only thing that won't change is the thinking distance which will remain the same in all cases.
teabelly
|
Detouring slightly from the main discussion, teabelly's post has referred to the fact that there used to be no NSL on some roads in the UK, as have several others recently.
Purely out of curiousity, when did this stop? Was it applicable to all roads (unless marked otherwise) or just A roads (or motorways, if it was still around then)? And can anyone remember why an NSL was introduced?
|
Duchess
(Doffs cap and genuflects)
I think you will find that as far as cars, small vans and dual purpose vehicles were concerned it was The 70mph,60mph and 50mph (Temporary Speed Limit) Order,1977 that brought in the NSL. This Order was made permanent the year later (1978).
Ma'am your servant,
DVD
(You got an invite to the do on 8.4.2005?)
|
|
Naturally, one expects.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
