Morons reducing speed limits
- Thread starter Guv
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 6,972
- Location
- Cambs UK
Only reasoning I can see from dropping a 60 to 50 is to cut down on overtaking because vans, lorries and cars will all have the same limit.
I've got a Vito at work and it does 60 in about 8.5 seconds and when it's empty it stops on a 10p coin. limited to 50 on NSL :/
I've got a Vito at work and it does 60 in about 8.5 seconds and when it's empty it stops on a 10p coin. limited to 50 on NSL :/
You can blame Oxfordshire for this 50 limit madness, they started it years ago, dropping all their single carriageways to 50, That is except for the stupid little single-lane dirt tracks that don't go anywhere useful, they're still 60 and they had to put NSL signs up at the start of each one of them after the main roads were dropped to 50.
KSIs actually went up in Oxfordshire, but they're still rolling out the plan everywhere else anyway.
KSIs actually went up in Oxfordshire, but they're still rolling out the plan everywhere else anyway.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 2,562
- Location
- Edinburgh/Southampton
Reducing accidents and injuries is not the only reason they reduce speed limits.
The speed limit in Chilworth was cut for 'environmental reasons' which was basically that residents in their mansions didn't like the noise of cars speeding past their windows on a NSL road at 70mph, so they cut it to 40, everyone still does at least 50 since it's an arrow straight road....
The speed limit in Chilworth was cut for 'environmental reasons' which was basically that residents in their mansions didn't like the noise of cars speeding past their windows on a NSL road at 70mph, so they cut it to 40, everyone still does at least 50 since it's an arrow straight road....
If you don't like the sound of cars going past at 70, don't move into a house next to a ****ing main road!
If people find roads where the limit was cut for that reason, they should start driving down it at 40mph in second gear in protest IMO
Maybe the barryboy types with their fart cannons and huge subwoofers could be persuaded to help with this.
If people find roads where the limit was cut for that reason, they should start driving down it at 40mph in second gear in protest IMO
Maybe the barryboy types with their fart cannons and huge subwoofers could be persuaded to help with this.
This ties in with Health & Safety legislation: going by the lowest common intellectual denominator (anybody see the "green'n'red ribbon to be attached to dangerous farm machinery?").
When I was brought up, common sense was one of those things that went hand in hand with doing well in school: I was chastised (rightly so) for crossing a busy road at unsuitable points, told that coffee is generally served hot and probably would burn me if I went for a shower in it, reminded to look where I was going and be careful when going down steps, etc.
At the same time, the one time I've gotten out of a car (into the road, not onto the pavement) without looking, I was run over - neither I nor my parents ranted and raved at the poor lady that ran me over, they simply apologised and told me to learn my lesson.
I believe actual legal premise in this country is something along the lines of "there are no willing victims" but this was supercededsome time in the last century where some judge decided that individuals engaged in a certain activity were owed a duty of care by those around them. Which has greatly assisted ambulance chasers and stupid people in stiffing the generally sensible public and leading to wonderful Health & Safety signs like a sign under a door handle which, inspiringly, simply said "door handle."
Clearly some remarkably... gifted individuals worked in that office building. Probably the same type that cross dual carriage ways, have perverse attractions to coffee served at Starbucks and can't see stairs or low beams.
Whilst I sympathise with the idiotic minority of this country, William Shakespeare (I believe) said it best in his reference to Plato:
"Empty vessels make the loudest sounds..."
Roads are for CARS. Period.
If someone gets hit staggering around in a road serves themselves right.
Agree 100%.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 154
- Location
- Surrey UK
Smithy - you'll be lucky to convince any on here any further than you have tried so far - you are preaching to the converted here though 
Yes, SPECS has gone in for the reasons stated on the A127, though not fully funded by the council but with support from private industry.
A13 will be next, in the next financial year. The council have a national indicator which they are judged by which is the numbers of KSIs in the county, these type of schemes are seen to go towards trying to reduce the increasing KSIs in the county - the only other way would be to ban motorbikes as they seem to be the biggest influence on the statistic for obvious reasons! Essex have been fairly good at reducing the overall numbers, but it's hard to influence a number which only the people who are the KSI statistics have the control of!
KSI stats for essex:
http://www.drivingcasualtiesdown.org/speed/speed.php
Press release for A127 SPECS:
http://www.essexcc.gov.uk/vip8/ecc/...?channelOid=124288&guideOid=124161&oid=126241
Another press release:
http://www.drivingcasualtiesdown.org/news_article.php?article_id=174
Personally I am all for a scheme that could see a saving of 32 peoples lives, when people are unable or unwilling to see the bigger picture, they just see what is being done as something to hack them off.
Hope the info is of use.
Yes, SPECS has gone in for the reasons stated on the A127, though not fully funded by the council but with support from private industry.
A13 will be next, in the next financial year. The council have a national indicator which they are judged by which is the numbers of KSIs in the county, these type of schemes are seen to go towards trying to reduce the increasing KSIs in the county - the only other way would be to ban motorbikes as they seem to be the biggest influence on the statistic for obvious reasons! Essex have been fairly good at reducing the overall numbers, but it's hard to influence a number which only the people who are the KSI statistics have the control of!
KSI stats for essex:
http://www.drivingcasualtiesdown.org/speed/speed.php
Press release for A127 SPECS:
http://www.essexcc.gov.uk/vip8/ecc/...?channelOid=124288&guideOid=124161&oid=126241
Another press release:
http://www.drivingcasualtiesdown.org/news_article.php?article_id=174
Personally I am all for a scheme that could see a saving of 32 peoples lives, when people are unable or unwilling to see the bigger picture, they just see what is being done as something to hack them off.
Hope the info is of use.
Using that post a gauge, it wouldn't be too unreasonable for me to suggest that you lack the responsibility and intelligence to understand why these changes are put in place.
So it seems my arguments are unavailing, any further contribution from me in this topic is pointless.
I'm refuting the claim that speed causes the accident, because the cause of the accident is the pedestrian crossing the wrong incorrectly.
I'd also argue whether reducing speed would necessarily reduce damage on impact, as this is far more dependant on other factors (braking ability, mass etc) than speed alone.
That's a pretty stupid argument, responsibility for poor/careless decisions has to lie with those making the decisions, not those who just might be unlucky enough to hit someone doing something stupid.
As for those who aren't of sound mind and judgement, they should have someone else taking responsibility for their actions if they are that mentally impaired.
Well, we best all drive at 20mph then... It is not the job of legislation to protect against freak occurances and irresponsible behaviour on the part of pedestrians.
Smithy - you'll be lucky to convince any on here any further than you have tried so far - you are preaching to the converted here though
Yes, SPECS has gone in for the reasons stated on the A127, though not fully funded by the council but with support from private industry.
A13 will be next, in the next financial year. The council have a national indicator which they are judged by which is the numbers of KSIs in the county, these type of schemes are seen to go towards trying to reduce the increasing KSIs in the county - the only other way would be to ban motorbikes as they seem to be the biggest influence on the statistic for obvious reasons! Essex have been fairly good at reducing the overall numbers, but it's hard to influence a number which only the people who are the KSI statistics have the control of!
KSI stats for essex:
http://www.drivingcasualtiesdown.org/speed/speed.php
Press release for A127 SPECS:
http://www.essexcc.gov.uk/vip8/ecc/...?channelOid=124288&guideOid=124161&oid=126241
Another press release:
http://www.drivingcasualtiesdown.org/news_article.php?article_id=174
Personally I am all for a scheme that could see a saving of 32 peoples lives, when people are unable or unwilling to see the bigger picture, they just see what is being done as something to hack them off.
Hope the info is of use.
Do you have any impartial sources? I suggest the TrL reports which clearly show that speed is only a causal factor in around 5% of accidents, and is commissioned and then ignored by the government when it comes to managing road safety...
Also, your entire post is an appeal to emotion, especially the last paragraph, because there are many better ways to save 32 lives on the road than speed cameras...
Getting people to reduce their speed to minimise the effect of an accident caused by another causal factor is a retarded philosophy, deal with the cause of the accident and prevent it occuring in the first place. The other solution is akin to giving people blunter knives so they don't cut themselves so badly when the root cause of the problem is that they don't use the knife properly in the first place.
Ah, but such a solution requires a bit of thought and *shock horror!* personal responsibility...
This isn't about putting a cause or blame on the accident. These changes are brought in to reduce the chance of the accidents happening in the first place. Whether or not you choose to believe it, speed is a major factor in determining how quickly you stop when someone steps out into the road. The lower your speed, the more chance you have of stopping in time. Sorry for being patronising mate.
You seem to be of the impression that these changes are in place because the powers that be have decided motorists are responsible for the accidents. This simply isn't the case, nor are the new laws trying to suggest that.
These changes aren't an accusation against your responsibility as a motorist, they are an effective method of reducing the chance of an accident happening. And they will remain to be the most effective until a perfect world evolves whereby all pedestrians are of good judgement and responsibility.
Stop trying to find someone to blame. Accept that accidents happen. Do your best to avoid them.
Would you also be in favour of more green cross code adverts on TVs? More in-depth explanation of how to cross the roads in schools?
I think the problem is that it always seem the drivers get the short end of the stick, new limits rules etc, but the pedestrians are free to roam around the roads getting knocked over.
I feel the same as overlag and fox, roads are for cars, people should take more care when crossing them.
As for the dual carriage ways, i bet 100+ cars drive along the road for every numpty that tries to cross on foot, why slow hundreds of people down for the sake of a handful of people per day?
You always hear on the new 'X amount of people have been killed in road accidents this year', of course accidents will happen regardless, you can't stop them all, yet they seem to think they can.
Off at a slight tangent but is there any reason why the UK doesn't increment speed limits in 5MPH intervals as in the USA? I'm sure there's many cases where a road gets a 30 MPH limit because 40 MPH is deemed too fast, but 35 MPH would be fine.
Stopping the pedestrian from stepping out in the road in front of the car will reduce the risk of accidents far more than dropping speed. It is the pedestrian entering the road incorrectly that causes the accident, not the speed. Sorry being patronising, but this is simple. If you want to reduce the number of accidents, tackle the cause of the accidents. You want to tackle something that might help drivers avoid the cause, it would be far more successful to tackle the cause directly.
As for stopping distances, car design, structure and weight play a much greater part in whether any particular car/driver combination can stop in time for a pedestrian. My Audi can stop in a shorter distance than my micra, and both can stop in a signifincantly shorter distance than a 15 year old shopping car. This gets more and more noticable as speed increases.
On the old old top gear, they did a comparison of the base model 106, against the 106 GTi. The GTi stopped, from 70mph, in literally half the distance of the base model. Clearly, speed is but one small factor in whether you can stop.
They clearly are, because that's what they are doing. That's also why they have had, and will continue to have, zero impact on the number of accidents that occur, and only marginal impact on their severity.
To tackle the problem properly, you need to tackle the root causes of accidents, that's where our road safety policy is consistently failing ever since the introduction of the speed kills lie, and why more people than necessary are being killed or injured every year because of it.
They are not though. Speed is only a causal effect in around 5% of accidents. That means that any attempt to reduce speed can only reduce the number of accidents by a minimal amount. I'm sorry you've fallen for the lie, but do yourself a favour and take a step back and look at the situation objectively.
If you want to reduce accidents, the solution is to tackle the causes of accidents.
True accidents very rarely happen, there is usually someone to blame, hence why education and enforcement of trying to reduce accident causing behaviour (based on the solid evidence and statistics the government pay to have researched each year and then ignore entirely) will yield much better results.
You seem to think I'm looking for someone else to blame, I'm not, I'm looking for improved road safety, and a reduction in pointless laws that are not fit for purpose. The current obsession with speed isn't backed by facts (in truth it's completely refuted by them) as a major contributor to road accidents, and as such it provides no tangible road safety improvement to focus on it. To focus on it almost exclusively will have a negative effect, and it has, with the rate of reduction in kills and serious injuries slowing down dramatically since the introduction of speed kills and the reduction in road traffic policing in favour of single purpose cameras that don't target risk factors.
We both want the same thing, you're just going completely the wrong way about getting it.
I agree with you that pedestrians making poor decisions is often the cause for accidents. I also agree that the most effective way to eradicate all accidents is for all pedestrians to never use the roads. There is no realistic approach to this though. You will never achieve this. It's pointless to include it in any further argument. Once we've established that fact, we need to look for other alternatives to help prevent accidents from happening when pedestrians do make poor decisions.
Being a responsible road is being aware that random events can happen, i.e. pedestrians stepping out into the road. It also means being prepared for them. Ignoring them is arrogant and irresponsible.
Being a responsible road is being aware that random events can happen, i.e. pedestrians stepping out into the road. It also means being prepared for them. Ignoring them is arrogant and irresponsible.
Where have I advocated never allowing pedestrians to use the roads? The issue is poor road crossing approachs, lack of engineering solutions (eg crossings/bridges/subways), and a lack of punishment for pedestrians for causing accidents.
Those things together would all provide much safer roads in towns and suburban areas.
Ignoring the options for reducing accidents is far more arrogant and irresponsible. Placing all the blame (and therefore demand for change) on an irrelevant factor is the very height of irresponsibility.
There's a difference between drivers being aware of random events (they genuinely are) and allowing and encouraging 'random' events to occur with bad practices.