Having been stuck behind a driver doing less that 40mph in a 50mph, I came across this today. If only...
Safe or selfish?
DURING my 60 years of motoring, I have always believed that speed limits are a crude aid to safer driving. They do not react to varying road conditions or time of day and also, paradoxically, encourage the average motorist to drive faster. This is born out of your repeated condemnation of those who drive below the speed limit. Despite your comments, I refuse to feel guilty when driving at 40mph in a 50mph zone. Should I?
SO it's my fault that drivers break speed limits? I don't think so! There is no need to feel guilty for driving at less than the speed limit if that is what safety requires, and I would never condemn anyone for doing so; indeed, I have frequently pointed out that speed limits represent a maximum, not a safe speed for all conditions.
Excessive speed is a causal factor in relatively few accidents
(less than 10 per cent). Nevertheless, crude or not, speed limits save lives, and nobody in their right mind would argue against their sensible application. Irrespective of what limit is attached to a particular section of road, and whether it is sensible or not, we all have a duty to drive legally and, more importantly, safely.
Like other responsible drivers, I may choose to drive below a given speed limit if it isn't safe to proceed any quicker. But this requires judgment. To drive along a motorway at 30mph in good conditions because I didn't want to go any faster would not be a safe thing to do.
Similarly, if you drive at 40mph in a 50mph zone when there is no justification for such caution, you should not be surprised if a queue of drivers builds up behind you. And at that point you should take their rights and feelings into account as well as your own. How would you feel if you were held up by someone who shared your philosophy, but regarded 20mph as the ideal speed?
We all have to share the available road space, and to do so safely requires co-operation, courtesy and compassion. Yet some motorists don't seem to understand the effect they have on others. Persistent dawdling and/or obstruction can wreak havoc on the tempers of following drivers who lack a masters degree in patience, and their increasingly desperate attempts to overtake can be highly dangerous.
It is foolish of them to take risks, but the slowcoach at the head of the procession must share some of the responsibility for allowing the situation to arise. We are dealing with humans, not robots.
It is said of some drivers that thay have never have had anaccident but have caused hundreds, and there is an element of truth in that stereotype. It is certainly hard to believe that the many drivers who travel everywhere at a steady 40mph - 20mph below the speed limit on the open road, but 10mph above the limit in villages and towns - are safer than those who vary their speed according to the prevailing conditions and the posted limit.
Try to ensure that when you drive below the limit you do so for a good and justifiable reason and not because you are unaware of the needs of others or get some kind of kick out of imposing your philosophy on them. If you really don't feel comfortable at a higher speed, allow following drivers to overtake you, as The Highway Code demands.
And if you find yourself in a procession but are unwilling to pass those ahead of you, then for goodness' sake leave an adequate space between you and the car in front so that those who wish to overtake can safely slot into the gap as they work their way past the queue; forcing a driver to overtake several vehicles at once, or making it hard for him to pull in, is a recipe for disaster. Selfish drivers are bad drivers, and potentially dangerous at any speed.
Andy
|
Andy,
Agreed. It is however highly aggravating to sit behind a 40er in a 60, in safe conditions. One could say its their right to travel at a slower speed, but more often than not (mentioned in your post), this speed is maintained into built up 30 zones which indicates to me that:
Rather than for safety reasons this practice is because the 'lights are on, but no-one's home'. Essentially a complete lack of awareness of their surroundings.
dan
|
Because of the current obsession with speed limit offences which ignores the much more dangerous "excessive speed for the conditions" I often find myself at the front of a queue travelling at 29 mph in a 30 limit where 40 would be quite safe.
Because of this I find that sometimes drivers behind get very angry as they can see no reason for the slow speed other than a stupidly set limit. It puts needless pressure on me as I know I am holding them up and it puts pressure on them because they see me as a rolling road block. Driving a Volvo doesn't help!
There have been several instances of dodgy overtaking under these conditions which would not have happened if I had been travelling at the 85th percentile speed.
On the other hand, if I drive at 15 mph in a High street, there is no problem because the drivers behind can see the reason for it and the huge majority would do the same if they were in the lead.
Can those who think that speed limits save lives explain why there is not carnage on the German autobahns?
|
The 70 mph limit on Britain's M-ways was introduced 30 years ago to deal with an oil crisis. Why has it stayed? Have successive governments been too callow to remove it? Did somebody suddenly find that accident figures dropped? Or are M-ways so safe precisely because there is a 70 limit?
On the other hand, I don't know of any significant stretches of road with 30 or 40 mph limits which would be safe at much above those speeds, although I know many which would be unsafe at HALF those speeds under certain conditions, e.g. dark, wet nights.
In my view, we should campaign for removing, or significantly raising, limits on M-ways and rural dual carriageways, combined with stricter enforcement of urban limits.
Then more police on the roads to look out for drivers who abuse the greater freedom by driving dangerously or without due care.
|
The 70mph speed limit on the motorways in this country can be traced back to 1964, and to AC Cars. Two AC Cobras were caught racing along the M1 at 183mph at 4 a.m. The actual speed varies depending on the source, but some claim they were doing 196!
As a result of this, the 70mph speed limit was introduced the following year.
Thanks, guys!
Andy
|
|
|
Derek,
>On the other hand, I don't know of any significant stretches of road with 30 or 40 mph limits which would be safe at much above those speeds, although I know many which would be unsafe at HALF those speeds under certain conditions, e.g. dark, wet nights.<
I live in a country area and there are many 30 mph limits which are not correctly set according to government guidelines. A well known one is between Prestatyn and Meliden where the road would be quite safe at 50 as there are no junctions, very few pedestrians and pavements about 10 feet away from the edge of the road.
There are no houses in the gap between the two towns and yet where do the cynical police put their speed traps? They skulk behind a hedge waiting for a driver to fail to brake on the downhill sections. The road is straight and downhill from both towns into a dip and to keep to 30, for no safety reason at all , takes permanent braking. Why?
The vast majority of drivers are sensible and the few idiots are not going to take notice of road conditions to select their speed. They are the ones who should be targetted.
When will folks realise there is a vast difference between excessive speed for the conditions and driving a couple of miles an hour above a poorly set limit?
|
|
|
|
|
Alwyn, agreed. I sometimes feel like a road block, even without the caravan. Like that scene in the French Connection I was overtaken many years ago at a zebra crossing in Otley by an impatient driver who collected an empty pram against his bumper.
|
|
|
|
|
The limit stays because there would be cries of baby-slaughter if it was proposed to raise or remove it. It was set when the typical family car was e.g. a 105E Ford Anglia with 74 mph top speed, so 70 mph was almost flat out. Compare that to the modern-day equivalent (Ka, Fiesta, Focus?) and their tyres, brakes, handling etc.
Motorways are safer not because of the limit, but because all vehicles are travelling in the same direction with low relative speeds and no unprotected roadside obstacles.
If you want an example of a low speed limit find Ferry Lane, Tottenham, E London on the map. It is 30 mph with a reservoir on one side and a railway line on the other, two (wide) lanes each way, although one is a bus lane 07.00-10.00. If it was roofed it would be a tunnel! Most drivers take it at 40 mph+ and would be 50+ if the limit was not there.
Not so sure about higher limits for all rural dual carriageways, many have intersections and side roads, cyclists, horses and farm vehicles. But certainly lobby for higher
|
|
I like your reference to 'baby slaughter'. It seems to me that many of the silliest drivers sport 'baby on board' stickers. Maybe it refers to the driver..........
|
The BoB stickers were originally a result of a tragic incident where the adults in a vehicle were killed, and a baby had been thrown out or into a footwell, during a collision I believe.
The idea was to indicate to emergency services that they should be looking for a small passenger in the event of a bad collision.
Then they were hi-jacked by self-righteous prats who thought 'oh look, thats a way to tell the world that my offspring are more valuable lives than theirs' - which would have rendered them pointless - except that they probably wouldn't wear a sign saying 'I am an egocentric prat whose limited mental abilities are largely occupied by thinking about my offspring, (who may or may not be present), therefore I may be expected to drive like one' but who have adopted the shorthand version almost to a woman!
|
|
|
|
Dan
I agree - many's the time I've had someone trying to get up my exhaust pipe at 30 or 40mph only to leave them far behind when going up to (if safe) the 60mph limit at the end of the lower limit. I think they just drive everywhere at the same speed. Frightening really
|
Dave Y,
Maybe they set their cruise control and now it's locked... ??? ;-)
CV
|
|
|
|
|
Some good and sound observations Andy. At the end of the day, one of the potential answers is variable speed limits - as you say, the safe speed on a given road varies by time of day, weather conditions etc. If there was some simple mechanism for implementing variable speed limits (satellite ;-)?), then we could have 100mph motorways & 10mph urban limits.
|
|
|
"a 105E Ford Anglia with 74 mph top speed, so 70 mph was almost flat out. Compare that to the modern-day equivalent (Ka, Fiesta, Focus?) and their tyres, brakes, handling etc."
What a great example!
The Ka engine is pretty much straight out of a 105E!!!
Although the Ka does just top 90mph. (92IIRC)
Progress! Don't ya just love it!
|
|
|
Agreed Andy,
One of my motoring nightmares happned when I was hitch-hiking to Lands End one easter.
A little old lady (retired school teacher!) gave me and the girlfriend a lift, from Exeter to Launceston (? - Help me out, west country fellows!) in an Austin Maxi.
Tootled along at about 35-40 the whole way.
HGV's, caravans, tour busses etc all overtook us. (We saw much fist shaking and lip read "Stupid &*(*(^)(*&* old bag!" from the drivers who passed...
|
|
Standing at the platform of my local train station today a train whistled past me at 80mph (ish)+ in the middle of a town centre! Whilst accepting that the likelihood of someone stepping in front of the train is fairly small, it seems mad that trains don't slow down more when going through stations as there is a risk involved in doing this which can be reduced. What do people think?
|
Speed limits are simply a result of many drivers showing that they are not responsible or safe to be driving. When motorways were opened in late 1959 there was immediately carnage when the first fog occurred in November.
Large numbers were killed simply driving into the back of multiple crashes.
Sounds familiar even today. The other year a Policeman on TV was describing being in his car and watching car after car disappearing into the fog and the dreadful sound of another crash. I recall many years ago the Police running convoys of traffic down the motorway in fog to slow them down.
And many of those suicidal drivers were professional drivers who one would have thought less likely to do this.
For every driver who can be trusted to drive safely with his own and other people's interest in mind there is another who just dosn't care about the consequences of his actions.
alvin
|
|
|
|
That's what the yellow line on the platform is for!
However, I take your point, if you know that a train is going to go through at 80 mph you step back.
Pedestrians, knowing a car is going to come past at 30 mph, stand right on the edge of the kerb or step out in front of it!
Maybe its because they know that the train cannot stop or deviate from the tracks, whereas a car can swerve or stop?
|
Just to correct a comment above. The 70mph limit on Motorways was not introduced in response to the oil shortage of the early 70s. It was introduced in response to a spate of accidents in fog during the late 60s. How wonderfully relevant!!
The limit during the oil shortage was 50mph, however, the 60 limit on non dual carriageways was a hangover from this.
I currently live in S Bucks where most drivers proceed at 42mph through 30. 40 and 60 limits and boy do they get excited if you overtake them in a 60 limit. Lights flash, horns blow etc. I reckon the high traffic density has a lot to do with it but I bet possibly 90% of local drivers have never ever overtaken
|
Actually it was because AC demonstrated that you could do about 170 in perfect safety and the vile, miserable, anti-motoring whingers had to tramp on THAT knowledge, quick.
I apologise, meine Freunden, its our fault, by reason of losing the war.
|
|
|
|
