Government road safety failure strikes again...

Dolph · 16 Dec 2009 at 09:14

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8415351.stm

New advice to councils to cut the speed limit on roads with accident blackspots is being published by the government.

Ministers want the national speed limit of 60mph lowered to 50mph on selected main roads in rural areas.

They are advising local authorities to introduce gradually 20mph zones in all residential areas and near schools.

The government says more ambitious targets are needed for reducing deaths as it enters the final year of its decade-long road safety strategy.

More than 32,000 people have died on British roads in the past 10 years but the country's record has improved.

The government's target of cutting deaths and serious injuries by 40% by the end of 2010 has already been met but ministers are planning more ambitious goals.

Poor driving

On Wednesday they will issue guidance to councils urging blanket speed limits of 50mph, rather than 60mph, on rural single-carriageway A roads with a history of accidents.

The government also says the standard limit should be 20mph around homes and schools.

BBC transport correspondent Tom Symonds says the move will not be popular with those opposing tighter restrictions on motorists.

But safety experts say deaths are still not falling fast enough, partly because of poor driving.

*headdesk*

If poor driving is the cause, then speed limits do not treat that cause... How can the government, in the face of overwhelming evidence from studies that they commission, keep on with this epic failure of road safety policy?

Treat the actual causes of accidents you ignorant, death causing idiots!

paradigm · 16 Dec 2009 at 09:22

I heard this on the radio this morning. I can explicitly remember that all I could hear in my head was "NO, NO, NO, NO, NO..."

I honestly couldn't believe I was hearing that "speed limit cuts weren't reducing road accidents by enough", so that the solution was to "lower speed limits".

Labour logic, got to love it :rolleyes:

dirtydog · 16 Dec 2009 at 09:23

How do you know they aren't including speeders in their definition of poor driving.

Gaygle · 16 Dec 2009 at 09:23

Over the last 5 years we've been told that 30mph is "safe", now they're saying that's too fast and it should be 20mph now? In another 5 years are they going to be telling us it should be 10mph?

TBH i don't really care what limit they put on rural roads. I'll still be going as fast as i see fit. Rural roads are very very rarely policed so the chance of getting caught is nigh on zero - hence, won't affect me one bit.

Gaygle · 16 Dec 2009 at 09:26

Also, one thing that always gets me is that Labour claim to have cut the accidents by 40%. Fine. Great in fact!

... but they're going to try and claim that the reduction in deaths and S.I. is because they reduced speed limits and introduced thousands of speed cameras, when in actual fact, i'd bet that improvement in safety technology in cars makes up for the large majority of the 40% reduction.

Dolph · 16 Dec 2009 at 09:29

dirtydog said:
How do you know they aren't including speeders in their definition of poor driving.

Because the government's own research shows that exceeding the speed limit only accounts for about 3% of accidents (including people involved in other criminal activities)? Excessive speed (which includes legal but too fast for the conditions) only around 8%?

The only thing that speed limits can treat is those areas, everything else, the other 97% won't be affected, and yet they can't seem to work out why accidents, injuries and deaths aren't dropping significantly. They are creating laws based on a strawman, it would be comical if it wasn't the state...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ers-cause-3-car-accidents-figures-reveal.html

Firestar_3x · 16 Dec 2009 at 09:31

Its almost as good as closing 1.5 RAF bases in the UK and getting rid of servicemen so they can fund 22 new choppers and the "war"...........

Total bunch of morons.

EddScott · 16 Dec 2009 at 09:33

I don't really see what difference it makes. Unless theres a police car on every corner or a camera atop every tree, how will the 50mph be enforced?

I live in West Wales and theres some very good roads around these parts and the road over the Presellis to Cardigan is awesome in a decent car. Its very windy with big altitude changes and yet the limit is 60mph. Some sections are heart in the mouth stuff at 60

So I would understand if this was made a 50.

Dogbreath · 16 Dec 2009 at 09:40

All this will do is make even more people break the law. The current government wouldn't know what a good policy was if it smacked them in the face. And I wish one would.

Dolph · 16 Dec 2009 at 09:45

EddScott said:
I don't really see what difference it makes. Unless theres a police car on every corner or a camera atop every tree, how will the 50mph be enforced?

I live in West Wales and theres some very good roads around these parts and the road over the Presellis to Cardigan is awesome in a decent car. Its very windy with big altitude changes and yet the limit is 60mph. Some sections are heart in the mouth stuff at 60 So I would understand if this was made a 50.

But I'd also guess that some sections are safe for much greater than 60mph in a suitable car... And it is for drivers to understand and assess what is the appropriate speed, not for the sign to tell you, because unless the sign is constantly variable based on the car being driven, the amount of traffic, and the prevailing weather conditions, it will never provide useful or relevant information.

The sooner they stop this current campaign suggesting that the sign at the side of the road has anything to do with appropriate speed on that road, the better.

a1ex2001 · 16 Dec 2009 at 10:10

Whats annoys me even more than the stupidity of the idea is the ridiculous number of new signs they are going to have to chuck up making the place look ridiculous, 20 and 50 repeater signs every hundred meters on half the roads in the country, no thanks.

miniyazz · 16 Dec 2009 at 10:55

a1ex2001 said:
Whats annoys me even more than the stupidity of the idea is the ridiculous number of new signs they are going to have to chuck up making the place look ridiculous, 20 and 50 repeater signs every hundred meters on half the roads in the country, no thanks.

Actually you don't need either of those necessarily. If they're making a blanket limit of 50, it'd just need a public awareness campaign, and maybe an additional 50 sign underneath the NSL sign. And you don't always need repeater 20 signs, but I can't remember when you do and when you don't. Something to do with either street lights or speed bumps *ponders*

But which government is going to actually change the road safety policy?

Jono8 · 16 Dec 2009 at 11:08

How about they fix the craters and potholes on practically every road in surrey first :mad:

Why are they reducing speed limits, when newer cars have far far better breaks, stopping distances and pedestrian safety features :confused:

slowing down the roads will probably only cause more congestion and then they will complain about that and raise some kind of tax.

BAH!

Mr. Anderson · 16 Dec 2009 at 11:14

Better to have 10 broken legs a year than 1 death.

Mr. Anderson · 16 Dec 2009 at 11:20

Dolph said:
it is for drivers to understand and assess what is the appropriate speed, not for the sign to tell you

Laughable really

He's assuming that every driver is intelligent and level headed enough to assess every situation - and be modest about their own driving ability - and determine from that what speed they should be driving... despite the fact that Gaygle in this very same thread said that he will drive as fast as he likes if he think he won't get caught.

Speed limits should be set according to the lowest common denominator, not the highest.

osc89er · 16 Dec 2009 at 11:33

Mr. Anderson said:
Laughable really

He's assuming that every driver is intelligent and level headed enough to assess every situation - and be modest about their own driving ability - and determine from that what speed they should be driving... despite the fact that Gaygle in this very same thread said that he will drive as fast as he likes if he think he won't get caught.

Speed limits should be set according to the lowest common denominator, not the highest.

I think you misunderstand. Both Dolph and Gaygle are saying the same thing. On a straight road with good visibility the safe speed will be well above 60. On the hairpin turns the safespeed will be well below 30. The bit where it differs is that Gaygle has come straight out and admitted that he won't respect the speed limit.

You say, if the speed limit is too high for those drivers then lower it - this results in the current situation where the drivers believe that the speed limit is the safe speed. They'll kill themselves by going off a hairpin turn at 50mph.

If the lowest common denominator is too low then it should be raised.

miniyazz · 16 Dec 2009 at 11:35

Mr. Anderson said:
Better to have 10 broken legs a year than 1 death.

Mr. Anderson said:
Laughable really

He's assuming that every driver is intelligent and level headed enough to assess every situation - and be modest about their own driving ability - and determine from that what speed they should be driving... despite the fact that Gaygle in this very same thread said that he will drive as fast as he likes if he think he won't get caught.

Speed limits should be set according to the lowest common denominator, not the highest.

You seem to be living in some utopian dream world, in which ten broken legs would indeed be better than one death. However in the real world, other factors come into play, most obviously money. For example, NICE restricts the amount of money that can be spent on a supply of a drug that would keep someone alive for one quality-adjusted life year, because there is a finite amount of money, and if you spend too much on one drug, you cannot afford to spend money on other, more cost-effective, drugs.
Reducing the speed limits on the roads will increase travel times, thereby increasing congestion because more cars will have to be on the road at once, and as a result causing substantial loss of income to the country because of all the hours wasted commuting.
So, how many thousands of pounds worth of disruption would there need to be before it's not worth saving that one life? Bearing in mind that those thousands of pounds could have gone towards some other safety scheme, or to a charity, or to the NHS, where they would have saved considerably more than one life.

And that's without even considering why the state should intervene in what is, inherently, a more dangerous activity than using public transport. If the risk is too high for some people to accept, they will use public transport. If they choose to use a car regardless, they've clearly accepted the risk, and so the government should not be there telling people to slow down - it's a decision that should be taken by those using the roads, not some faceless politician/bureaucrat.

SC04 · 16 Dec 2009 at 11:37

Gaygle said:
Over the last 5 years we've been told that 30mph is "safe", now they're saying that's too fast and it should be 20mph now? In another 5 years are they going to be telling us it should be 10mph?

TBH i don't really care what limit they put on rural roads. I'll still be going as fast as i see fit. Rural roads are very very rarely policed so the chance of getting caught is nigh on zero - hence, won't affect me one bit.

What selfish people like yourself need to be aware of, is that complaints from residents are through the roof. If you speed (safely) through even rural roads people regularly disturbed will complain. The research and stats are likely to be more of a smoke screen.

I used to do motocross and we lost a lot of tracks due to complaints and now the same residents want the roads to be quiet. One of the guys complaining was a F1 engineer who'd moved to the country to enjoy peace and quiet :eek:

It's the selfish people who have got us in this situation. I still ride bikes and wouldn't be at all surprised to see us banned from some areas due to the selfish idiots speeding and making noise, let alone killing themselves.
It's already happened in the US, where residents are getting the powers.
If anyone thinks moving abroad is the answer you're wrong, Switzerland, Germany put residents and pedestrians, cyclists first, you will get shouted at for being a tad over the limit by walkers. Residential areas are 20KM! . Australia is also pretty slow going for driving and strictly policed.

I've driven badly on the roads in the past, I've had speeding fines and points. You've got to take it on the chin, we knew full well our vehicles were designed to go way way above speed limits, and potentially kill, but still bought them. I personally fully expected roads to get worse and limits drop. If you want to drive fast do it properly as a sport, hassle the governments to build private tracks as a compromise. Not that I expect the idiots to be interested in a compromise.

Sin_Chase · 16 Dec 2009 at 11:39

Mr. Anderson said:
Laughable really

He's assuming that every driver is intelligent and level headed enough to assess every situation - and be modest about their own driving ability - and determine from that what speed they should be driving... despite the fact that Gaygle in this very same thread said that he will drive as fast as he likes if he think he won't get caught.

Speed limits should be set according to the lowest common denominator, not the highest.

Bull.

It is EVERY drivers responsibility to know what is safe and acceptable and what is not. I do not care how retarded you are, if you CANNOT achieve this you should not be driving.

The signage is often in-appropriate and I have been on roads where adhering to the posted limit would see you taking some very dangerous risks.

A driver should know that on a blind steep corner they should reduce their speed in order to be able to stop in the distance they can see. According to you they should ignore this and follow the "holy grail" of safety that is an arbitrary number on a sign.

A number that does not know whether there is ice, snow, rain, oil spills, mud from farms or whatever else on the road. But as long as they follow it and watch it NOTHING could ever possibly go wrong.

Driving lessons and testing should be more comprehensive, integrate advanced driving techniques and theory and overall just be made better.

osc89er · 16 Dec 2009 at 11:40

SC04 said:
What selfish people like yourself need to be aware of, is that complaints from residents are through the roof. If you speed (safely) through even rural roads people regularly disturbed will complain. The research and stats are likely to be more of a smoke screen.

I used to do motocross and we lost a lot of tracks due to complaints and now the same residents want the roads to be quiet. One of the guys complaining was a F1 engineer who'd moved to the country to enjoy peace and quiet

It's the selfish people who have got us in this situation. I still ride bikes and wouldn't be at all surprised to see us banned from some areas due to the selfish idiots speeding and making noise, let alone killing themselves.
It's already happened in the US, where residents are getting the powers.
If anyone thinks moving abroad is the answer you're wrong, Switzerland, Germany put residents and pedestrians, cyclists first, you will get shouted at for being a tad over the limit by walkers. Residential areas are 20KM! . Australia is also pretty slow going for driving and strictly policed.

I'm quite ignorant of this particular issue. Is this a widespread phenomenon or just your observation?