Some limits are set for environmental reasons as well, would you still exceed the limit even if you knew you were potentially annoying residents who live nearby?
.
I think the only time cameras really bug me is enforcing 50mph limits is on motorways due to roadworks when there's no bugger in sight, just a bunch of cones!
The other main reason why they reduce the limit to 50mph is because of the narrowing of the lanes as well. They probably say 'protecting the work force' because they think its the best reason to convince people to obey.
I think they should put up a green R sign with number underneath (I suppose on many things as well as Motoring) so that people can look up the reasons on the internet. They could even provide a suggestions contact to point out any problems or ideas for improvements. There would be no excuse for ignorance then. It may even stop road myths in their tracks. :sleep:
I regularly break the speed limit. When I think about it, I'm pretty sure I break it - at least once - on every journey I make... yet I've never once been involved in an accident of any kind. Why not?
Good luck. Even if you are never responsible for a single road accident in your lifetime, it is purely down to luck whether you are or are not involved in one. Genuine accidental events and errors by other road users drag even the best drivers into road accidents every day of the year. Once the "accident" has occurred, speed of impact is then a major factor in determining the likelihood of someone dying - whoever is at fault. All these deaths are well worth while trying to avoid - whoever is at fault.
It's about imposing machine-like tollerances on human beings. A person cannot guarantee that their child will never get a cut, graze, fall over or anything and yet as a parent you should be able to be in control of your child 24/7 and guarantee their safety. Well it's the same in cars. You can't impose that sort of control on drivers. And yet we do.
We don't. The speed limit is not a speed for drivers to drive to, it is a maximum. Individual drivers know their own manageable tolerances - in my case a 5mph tolerance is easily attainable without effort, at all legal speeds. 3 mph is usually attainable. Therefore, if I drive with my speedo on 30 in a 30 zone, I am highly unlikely to ever be caught by a speed camera because a) my true speed is probably a bit lower than indicated and is likely to vary between 28 true and 33 true even if I inadvertently drift over 30 indicated, neither of which is likely to get me a ticket; and b) Gatsos aren't in practice set less than 5 mph above the actual limit so driving at an indicated 30 does not impose a machine like tolerance. Of course, if they try to be clever and drive at say an indicated 36mph, they may still manage to avoid a ticket, but things do become a lot more difficult because they then have a self-imposed machine-like tolerance.
I'm glad cameras are being switched off. I'd like to see better ways of restricting the speeds of problem roads. Then speeding becomes physically impossible whereas with cameras speeding is still possible at the expense of a few points on your licence.
A wide range of speed limiting measures is already in force throughout the country - what you suggest has already been done. But you can't sensibly impose chicanes or speed bumps on a fast inter-city dual-carriageway, each case has to be looked at separately.
No, 26% isn't very high, it's basically 1/4 - and even then that's not percentages where the speed limit has been broken (I notice you ignored that). You seem wholly unconcerned about the 75% causes of death, to the point you keep brushing them aside to return to the minority cause.
26% is a large minority and all significant contributory causes of road deaths need to have action taken to try and limit them. That means taking action on a wide front, of which speeding is one part - and which is being done. Trying to reduce 600 to 700 of the 3000-ish road deaths a year is an important part of the overall efforts to lower that 3,000-ish total.
I regularly break the speed limit. When I think about it, I'm pretty sure I break it - at least once - on every journey I make... yet I've never once been involved in an accident of any kind. Why not?
Would this be your attitude if somebody felt the need to speed up and down your street whilst your kids were playing outside?
Would this be your attitude if somebody decided to do 60 in a 40 whilst one of your children was driving on the same road?
Let's forgot about the fact that in reality even the most skilled driver can get caught up in an accident and speed WILL play a factor in the result, and remember that most drivers who think that they are good drivers, actually are not good drivers!
Would this be your attitude if somebody felt the need to speed up and down your street whilst your kids were playing outside?
Would this be your attitude if somebody decided to do 60 in a 40 whilst one of your children was driving on the same road?
Let's forgot about the fact that in reality even the most skilled driver can get caught up in an accident and speed WILL play a factor in the result, and remember that most drivers who think that they are good drivers, actually are not good drivers!
Frankly, I'm far more worried about being killed by the 74% of drivers who somehow manage to crash whilst not even breaking the speed limit.
I fully agree that the vast majority of drivers are actually very poor drivers - how else do they manage to crash when, gasp, they're not even speeding? This is why I am far more concerned about them than the small minority who crash whilst breaking the speed limit (which, although people continue to ignore the evidence, is less than 26%).
Frankly, I'm far more worried about being killed by the 74% of drivers who somehow manage to crash whilst not even breaking the speed limit.
I fully agree that the vast majority of drivers are actually very poor drivers - how else do they manage to crash when, gasp, they're not even speeding? This is why I am far more concerned about them than the small minority who crash whilst breaking the speed limit (which, although people continue to ignore the evidence, is less than 26%).
You can keep on quoting your "less than 26%" figure and other isolated stats until you are blue in the face but they still won't be any more meaningful than they are now (i.e. not at all).
Let's cut out all the circular "getting-us-nowhere" arguments based on this stat here and that stat there, and go straight for the big picture. The EU Commission released a substantial document on road safety on 20th july this year and I will just quote from two of its main findings:
1) Total road deaths per head of population for each EU member country - this indicates which countries are "getting it right" and which are not. Road deaths per head in the UK in 2009 were 38 per million - the lowest in the EU so clearly, overall Government motoring policies (which include speed enforcement cameras) are getting it right.
So across the European Union, UK has the best record for deaths on the road so we must have been getting it pretty well right; and the EU places speeding first in its list of the main killers on the road. I rest my case.
Would this be your attitude if somebody felt the need to speed up and down your street whilst your kids were playing outside?
Would this be your attitude if somebody decided to do 60 in a 40 whilst one of your children was driving on the same road?
Let's forgot about the fact that in reality even the most skilled driver can get caught up in an accident and speed WILL play a factor in the result, and remember that most drivers who think that they are good drivers, actually are not good drivers!
1) Total road deaths per head of population for each EU member country - this indicates which countries are "getting it right" and which are not. Road deaths per head in the UK in 2009 were 38 per million - the lowest in the EU so clearly, overall Government motoring policies (which include speed enforcement cameras) are getting it right.
Something is indeed working well. Unfortunately, the number of people speeding, and being caught speeding, is rising. And yet are road are comparatively safe. Good news all round eh?
Across the EU? That *may* be the case. But here in the UK you know FULL WELL that the government/police/authorities themselves openly publish the figures that show illegal speed is only a contributary aspect of less than 26% of accidents.
BTW, I would imagine 'not wearing a seatbelt' accounts for a minute percentage of UK road deaths, so these EU stats are fairly meaningless for this country.
So across the European Union, UK has the best record for deaths on the road so we must have been getting it pretty well right; and the EU places speeding first in its list of the main killers on the road. I rest my case.
And we have anti-speeding organisations telling us that 90% of UK motorists speed, 57% of them regularly. How strange that we have such safe roads... but, of course, it's not strange at all, is it? Not when we know that illegal speed is a minority cause of accidents.
BTW, why were the UK government stats about UK road accidents 'meaningless' (according to you), yet EU stats about driving across numerous countries, all with different laws and driving cultures, are apparently all that's needed for you to define exactly how things are here in the UK? Very odd.
BTW, why were the UK government stats about UK road accidents 'meaningless' (according to you), yet EU stats about driving across numerous countries, all with different laws and driving cultures, are apparently all that's needed for you to define exactly how things are here in the UK? Very odd.
It is your interpretation of that so-called "less than 26%" figure (which i haven't seen but it seems about right) which is meaningless - and wrong.
Why can't you see that 26% (or less) makes speeding one of the biggest if not the biggest contributory factors to road deaths. That percentage is a huge percentage, resulting in hundreds of road deaths a year - a figure that is well worth trying to lower.
Now if it was only 1%, you might be on to something (even though that would still be 30-ish deaths a year). But it isn't.
Frankly, I'm far more worried about being killed by the 74% of drivers who somehow manage to crash whilst not even breaking the speed limit.
I fully agree that the vast majority of drivers are actually very poor drivers - how else do they manage to crash when, gasp, they're not even speeding? This is why I am far more concerned about them than the small minority who crash whilst breaking the speed limit (which, although people continue to ignore the evidence, is less than 26%).
The speeding driver isn't the only factor. There are other vehicles, padestrians, slippery surfaces, shrapnel in the road, animals etc.. When mixed together these things can create a nasty accident, and in many cases the difference between life or death is the difference between 30 and 40.
Frankly, I'm far more worried about being killed by the 74% of drivers who somehow manage to crash whilst not even breaking the speed limit.
I fully agree that the vast majority of drivers are actually very poor drivers - how else do they manage to crash when, gasp, they're not even speeding? This is why I am far more concerned about them than the small minority who crash whilst breaking the speed limit (which, although people continue to ignore the evidence, is less than 26%).
Where did the 74% figure come from. Official DFT figures indicate that speed was only considered a factor in 14% of accidents (and that includes inappropriate speed for the conditions but within the posted limit as well as actually exceeding the speed limit). That means 86% of crashes occur without speed being considered a factor.
The speeding driver isn't the only factor. There are other vehicles, padestrians, slippery surfaces, shrapnel in the road, animals etc.. When mixed together these things can create a nasty accident, and in many cases the difference between life or death is the difference between 30 and 40.
Wouldnt it therefore make a lot of sense to tackle these factors as effectively as speeding - since for speed to be a factor in the seriousness of an accident - you have to actually have the accident first.
Speeding isnt the root cause of most accidents - therefore if you want to make a serious impact on the number of accidents - these root causes should be tackled first.
It seems a bit silly that the major concentration in effort seems to be aimed at reducing the seriousness of accidents - rather than reducing the number of accidents. Reduce the overall number of accidents and the casualty rate will drop - even if people continue to travel at the same speed.
Wouldnt it therefore make a lot of sense to tackle these factors as effectively as speeding - since for speed to be a factor in the seriousness of an accident - you have to actually have the accident first.
Speeding isnt the root cause of most accidents - therefore if you want to make a serious impact on the number of accidents - these root causes should be tackled first.
It seems a bit silly that the major concentration in effort seems to be aimed at reducing the seriousness of accidents - rather than reducing the number of accidents. Reduce the overall number of accidents and the casualty rate will drop - even if people continue to travel at the same speed.
Of course these factors should also be tackled. However, it is much easier for somebody to stick to a speed limit than it is to ensure that there is never oil or shrapnel in the road, or that a dog doesn't run out into the road, or a child.
Wouldnt it therefore make a lot of sense to tackle these factors as effectively as speeding .
That is indeed being done - among the overall and successful government strategy that sees the UK best in the EU road deaths league for 2009.
Speeding needs tackling - as do (and are) all the other things that are as important to the overall strategy. I only wish they would hide speed cameras and move them about more - they would then be a lot more effective than they are now, partially crippled as they are by being made known and visible.
There are very few visible speed cameras in my area but a few of the high level cameras which record you comming onto a road and a second camera records you comming of the road, the time take to travel between the 2 fixed cameras will indicate your speed over the fixed distance travelled. These cameras are currently being installed and not removed or turned off.
Of course these factors should also be tackled. However, it is much easier for somebody to stick to a speed limit than it is to ensure that there is never oil or shrapnel in the road, or that a dog doesn't run out into the road, or a child.
Ok - for the sake of argument, everyone stopped speeding overnight. How much do you think the rate of accidents would drop given that only 14% of all accidents can have speed attributed as a root cause (and probably much less than half of that figure involves actual speeding).
Where do we go from there - continue to reduce limits?
That is indeed being done - among the overall and successful government strategy that sees the UK best in the EU road deaths league for 2009.
Speeding needs tackling - as do (and are) all the other things that are as important to the overall strategy. I only wish they would hide speed cameras and move them about more - they would then be a lot more effective than they are now, partially crippled as they are by being made known and visible.
Really?
I see fewer road safety campains that I used to (anyone remember the green cross code ads?). Pedestrians also have responsibilities when using the road and are supposed to abide by the highway code too - how many know what these responsibilities are?
The conditions of the roads seems to be getting worse - pot holes etc.
Many warning signs and junctions are obscured by plant growth - is this tackled effectively?
A more effective approach might be to take a harder line against people who are at fault in accidents - perhaps a 3 strikes and you are out rule. Perhaps make tests harder - with periodic re-tests.
I see fewer road safety campains that I used to (anyone remember the green cross code ads?). Pedestrians also have responsibilities when using the road and are supposed to abide by the highway code too - how many know what these responsibilities are?
The conditions of the roads seems to be getting worse - pot holes etc.
Many warning signs and junctions are obscured by plant growth - is this tackled effectively?
A more effective approach might be to take a harder line against people who are at fault in accidents - perhaps a 3 strikes and you are out rule. Perhaps make tests harder - with periodic re-tests.
Overall, more effectively than in most Countries, apparently.
But yes, all of the above need tackling too if we are to continue to lower the annual death toll on the roads - in addition to and not instead of all the existing measures.
If we have learnt anything from threads like this is that the only way to get some drivers to conform and obey the law is by forcing them to. How we do that is worthy of debate.
As for this debate, who are the pro-speeders trying to convince and what?
We have found:
That they are generalisic. Most limits are correct and reasonable (if you do the research) yet they would still defend the right to break them.
That even limits which have environmental or residential reasons (which have limits because of the will of the people, not the Govt, Police or Council)....they will still break them.
They will quote statistics, yet don't understand that speeding is a symptom of not paying attention (not reading signs and reacting), an attitude of thinking they know better. Most road accidents would of not happened if people were concentrating in the first place. If your ignoring signs, what else are you ignoring?
With the attitude of the above points, they feel so strong to promote the idea that 'speeding is ok', they seem to have anger towards people who stick to the limits. Do they do this on the road as well? Evidence suggests that many actually think that drivers sticking to the law is wrong.
So, we have a type of person who has no respect for the law, no respect for those obeying the law, no respect for those who wanted a law/limit. Do they actually think they are on the right side of the argument?
That is indeed being done - among the overall and successful government strategy that sees the UK best in the EU road deaths league for 2009.
Speeding needs tackling - as do (and are) all the other things that are as important to the overall strategy. I only wish they would hide speed cameras and move them about more - they would then be a lot more effective than they are now, partially crippled as they are by being made known and visible.
The whole point of them being visible is so people slow down. If the camera's is in the right place that's a good thing.
Where did the 74% figure come from. Official DFT figures indicate that speed was only considered a factor in 14% of accidents (and that includes inappropriate speed for the conditions but within the posted limit as well as actually exceeding the speed limit). That means 86% of crashes occur without speed being considered a factor.
Be careful with that statistic though - "speed being considered a factor" is NOT equal to "the legal speed limit was being broken". The speed limit could have been broken before, say, 50% of accidents but the speed still not deemed a contributing factor.
Most limits are correct and reasonable (if you do the research) yet they would still defend the right to break them.
What "reseach" can people do to verify this. Also - if most limits are correct - why does there seem to be a wholesale drive to reduce them - despite the fact that car safety in increasing year on year. There are well in excess of 200 proposed reductions in Cheshire alone.
Also - I'm not sure I have actually seen anyone arguing for the right to break speed limits.
Comments
Thanks for proving my point.
Lucem, care to answer the two questions?
The other main reason why they reduce the limit to 50mph is because of the narrowing of the lanes as well. They probably say 'protecting the work force' because they think its the best reason to convince people to obey.
I think they should put up a green R sign with number underneath (I suppose on many things as well as Motoring) so that people can look up the reasons on the internet. They could even provide a suggestions contact to point out any problems or ideas for improvements. There would be no excuse for ignorance then. It may even stop road myths in their tracks. :sleep:
The problem is that the majority of those who believe they are good drivers, are actually pretty bad drivers.
We don't. The speed limit is not a speed for drivers to drive to, it is a maximum. Individual drivers know their own manageable tolerances - in my case a 5mph tolerance is easily attainable without effort, at all legal speeds. 3 mph is usually attainable. Therefore, if I drive with my speedo on 30 in a 30 zone, I am highly unlikely to ever be caught by a speed camera because a) my true speed is probably a bit lower than indicated and is likely to vary between 28 true and 33 true even if I inadvertently drift over 30 indicated, neither of which is likely to get me a ticket; and b) Gatsos aren't in practice set less than 5 mph above the actual limit so driving at an indicated 30 does not impose a machine like tolerance. Of course, if they try to be clever and drive at say an indicated 36mph, they may still manage to avoid a ticket, but things do become a lot more difficult because they then have a self-imposed machine-like tolerance.
A wide range of speed limiting measures is already in force throughout the country - what you suggest has already been done. But you can't sensibly impose chicanes or speed bumps on a fast inter-city dual-carriageway, each case has to be looked at separately.
26% is a large minority and all significant contributory causes of road deaths need to have action taken to try and limit them. That means taking action on a wide front, of which speeding is one part - and which is being done. Trying to reduce 600 to 700 of the 3000-ish road deaths a year is an important part of the overall efforts to lower that 3,000-ish total.
Would this be your attitude if somebody felt the need to speed up and down your street whilst your kids were playing outside?
Would this be your attitude if somebody decided to do 60 in a 40 whilst one of your children was driving on the same road?
Let's forgot about the fact that in reality even the most skilled driver can get caught up in an accident and speed WILL play a factor in the result, and remember that most drivers who think that they are good drivers, actually are not good drivers!
Frankly, I'm far more worried about being killed by the 74% of drivers who somehow manage to crash whilst not even breaking the speed limit.
I fully agree that the vast majority of drivers are actually very poor drivers - how else do they manage to crash when, gasp, they're not even speeding? This is why I am far more concerned about them than the small minority who crash whilst breaking the speed limit (which, although people continue to ignore the evidence, is less than 26%).
You weren't trying hard enough then.;)
I have, and have life long neck and back damage as a result.
Never hurt myself on the road though bar a few scrapes in my youth.:)
Let's cut out all the circular "getting-us-nowhere" arguments based on this stat here and that stat there, and go straight for the big picture. The EU Commission released a substantial document on road safety on 20th july this year and I will just quote from two of its main findings:
1) Total road deaths per head of population for each EU member country - this indicates which countries are "getting it right" and which are not. Road deaths per head in the UK in 2009 were 38 per million - the lowest in the EU so clearly, overall Government motoring policies (which include speed enforcement cameras) are getting it right.
2) The EU commission's assessment of the main killers on the road. These are (and I quote): Speeding, drink driving and failure to wear a seatbelt are still considered the three main killers on the road.. Each one of them needs to be addressed - yes, each one even if they 'only' represent "under 26% of fatalities"
So across the European Union, UK has the best record for deaths on the road so we must have been getting it pretty well right; and the EU places speeding first in its list of the main killers on the road. I rest my case.
Why are your children playing in the road........
Something is indeed working well. Unfortunately, the number of people speeding, and being caught speeding, is rising. And yet are road are comparatively safe. Good news all round eh?
Across the EU? That *may* be the case. But here in the UK you know FULL WELL that the government/police/authorities themselves openly publish the figures that show illegal speed is only a contributary aspect of less than 26% of accidents.
BTW, I would imagine 'not wearing a seatbelt' accounts for a minute percentage of UK road deaths, so these EU stats are fairly meaningless for this country.
And we have anti-speeding organisations telling us that 90% of UK motorists speed, 57% of them regularly. How strange that we have such safe roads... but, of course, it's not strange at all, is it? Not when we know that illegal speed is a minority cause of accidents.
BTW, why were the UK government stats about UK road accidents 'meaningless' (according to you), yet EU stats about driving across numerous countries, all with different laws and driving cultures, are apparently all that's needed for you to define exactly how things are here in the UK? Very odd.
Why can't you see that 26% (or less) makes speeding one of the biggest if not the biggest contributory factors to road deaths. That percentage is a huge percentage, resulting in hundreds of road deaths a year - a figure that is well worth trying to lower.
Now if it was only 1%, you might be on to something (even though that would still be 30-ish deaths a year). But it isn't.
They aren't
The speeding driver isn't the only factor. There are other vehicles, padestrians, slippery surfaces, shrapnel in the road, animals etc.. When mixed together these things can create a nasty accident, and in many cases the difference between life or death is the difference between 30 and 40.
Where did the 74% figure come from. Official DFT figures indicate that speed was only considered a factor in 14% of accidents (and that includes inappropriate speed for the conditions but within the posted limit as well as actually exceeding the speed limit). That means 86% of crashes occur without speed being considered a factor.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/rrcgb2008
Wouldnt it therefore make a lot of sense to tackle these factors as effectively as speeding - since for speed to be a factor in the seriousness of an accident - you have to actually have the accident first.
Speeding isnt the root cause of most accidents - therefore if you want to make a serious impact on the number of accidents - these root causes should be tackled first.
It seems a bit silly that the major concentration in effort seems to be aimed at reducing the seriousness of accidents - rather than reducing the number of accidents. Reduce the overall number of accidents and the casualty rate will drop - even if people continue to travel at the same speed.
Of course these factors should also be tackled. However, it is much easier for somebody to stick to a speed limit than it is to ensure that there is never oil or shrapnel in the road, or that a dog doesn't run out into the road, or a child.
That is indeed being done - among the overall and successful government strategy that sees the UK best in the EU road deaths league for 2009.
Speeding needs tackling - as do (and are) all the other things that are as important to the overall strategy. I only wish they would hide speed cameras and move them about more - they would then be a lot more effective than they are now, partially crippled as they are by being made known and visible.
Ok - for the sake of argument, everyone stopped speeding overnight. How much do you think the rate of accidents would drop given that only 14% of all accidents can have speed attributed as a root cause (and probably much less than half of that figure involves actual speeding).
Where do we go from there - continue to reduce limits?
Really?
I see fewer road safety campains that I used to (anyone remember the green cross code ads?). Pedestrians also have responsibilities when using the road and are supposed to abide by the highway code too - how many know what these responsibilities are?
The conditions of the roads seems to be getting worse - pot holes etc.
Many warning signs and junctions are obscured by plant growth - is this tackled effectively?
A more effective approach might be to take a harder line against people who are at fault in accidents - perhaps a 3 strikes and you are out rule. Perhaps make tests harder - with periodic re-tests.
Overall, more effectively than in most Countries, apparently.
But yes, all of the above need tackling too if we are to continue to lower the annual death toll on the roads - in addition to and not instead of all the existing measures.
As for this debate, who are the pro-speeders trying to convince and what?
We have found:
That they are generalisic. Most limits are correct and reasonable (if you do the research) yet they would still defend the right to break them.
That even limits which have environmental or residential reasons (which have limits because of the will of the people, not the Govt, Police or Council)....they will still break them.
They will quote statistics, yet don't understand that speeding is a symptom of not paying attention (not reading signs and reacting), an attitude of thinking they know better. Most road accidents would of not happened if people were concentrating in the first place. If your ignoring signs, what else are you ignoring?
With the attitude of the above points, they feel so strong to promote the idea that 'speeding is ok', they seem to have anger towards people who stick to the limits. Do they do this on the road as well? Evidence suggests that many actually think that drivers sticking to the law is wrong.
So, we have a type of person who has no respect for the law, no respect for those obeying the law, no respect for those who wanted a law/limit. Do they actually think they are on the right side of the argument?
yep, we should all drive like that.
The whole point of them being visible is so people slow down. If the camera's is in the right place that's a good thing.
Be careful with that statistic though - "speed being considered a factor" is NOT equal to "the legal speed limit was being broken". The speed limit could have been broken before, say, 50% of accidents but the speed still not deemed a contributing factor.
The one recently that was installed in a tip because of the drivers constantly driving too fast is a good example.
What "reseach" can people do to verify this. Also - if most limits are correct - why does there seem to be a wholesale drive to reduce them - despite the fact that car safety in increasing year on year. There are well in excess of 200 proposed reductions in Cheshire alone.
Also - I'm not sure I have actually seen anyone arguing for the right to break speed limits.