A modest proposal to abolish speed limits

[stockhausen]

This thread is a response to DOLPH's suggestion on more effective ways of reducing the carnage on the roads than relying on controlling driving speeds.

That's not my assertion at all. My point is that scientific fact shows that exceeding the speed limit is only a causal factor in a minutiae of accidents (circa 3%) from the government's own research, hence targeting drivers exceeding the speed limit and (mostly) ignoring everything is retarded policy.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18062776 (post #40 was your challenge, post #43 was my reply, you never came back)

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18067022 (post #24 was your challenge, post #25 was my reply, again, you vanished from the thread and never came back to me).

In summary, your proposals consist of:

• banning motorbikes
• building lots more bridges, subways and barriers and keeping pedestrians of the public highway
• introducing and enforcing jaywalking laws
• embracing Volvo's city safety system for avoiding collisions at low speeds
• banning cheap tyres and brakes
• employing more traffic cops to crack down on bad and dangerous driving habits
• more driver education

As a lightning response:

• why not ban cars as well?
• why would people (particularly children) be so much more likely to use bridges and subways than pedestrian crossings?
• how would you propose compelling ALL car manufacturers to use the "Volvo city safety system"? Legislation and a new scrappage scheme perhaps?
• how are you going to implement and enforce your undefined campaign against cheap tyres and brakes?
• how do you expect the traffic cops to judge and police "bad and dangerous driving habits"?
• how are you going to re-educate all those drivers?

As I recall, what I asked you to do was to suggest PRACTICAL ways of saving the lives of the nine or ten people killed on the road every day and reducing the scale of the horrific injuries suffered by RTA victims who aren't killed. Delightful though they are, I really don't think that any of your proposals are particularly practical. Perhaps if you were to flesh them out and cost them, they might make more sense?

 

[miniyazz]

At first I thought you were finally agreeing with Dolph's fairly irrefutable argument against speed cameras. No such luck.

As a lightning response:

• why not ban cars as well?
• why would people (particularly children) be so much more likely to use bridges and subways than pedestrian crossings?
• how would you propose compelling ALL car manufacturers to use the "Volvo city safety system"? Legislation and a new scrappage scheme perhaps?
• how are you going to implement and enforce your undefined campaign against cheap tyres and brakes?
• how do you expect the traffic cops to judge and police "bad and dangerous driving habits"?
• how are you going to re-educate all those drivers?

• why not ban cars as well? - That's just silly. I'm not sure that I agree with the idea of banning motorcycles, but the reasoning is that they are involved in a completely disproportionate number of accidents, and their outcomes are much worse.
• why would people (particularly children) be so much more likely to use bridges and subways than pedestrian crossings? - I am not forced to walk across and do not walk across a busy road when there is a bridge or subway enabling me to avoid the hassle of waiting 'til it's safe to cross then risking injury if I misjudge traffic. If I were a parent I would always use a bridge or subway regardless of whether the road were busy or not - to teach my children to use the subway/bridge instead of crossing the road. Add education in schools (similar to stop look listen) and it would be highly effective, albeit expensive to implement.
• how would you propose compelling ALL car manufacturers to use the "Volvo city safety system"? - Legislation and a new scrappage scheme perhaps? - new cars only, of course. Retrofitting cars is unlikely to work, and scrapping older cars would be silly - the system would be phased in over, say, 15 years, before becoming practically ubiquitous on the roads. I'm sure it's not beyond other car manufacturers to either design their own, similar, systems or to purchase the technology from Volvo. Raising awareness that such systems are available will increase customer demand for it without the need for legislation, although I suspect (unless it is prohibitively expensive for low-end cars) legislation would be useful here.
• how are you going to implement and enforce your undefined campaign against cheap tyres and brakes? - It would be perfectly feasible for any tyre manufacturer or importer to be subject to spot checks of tyre quality, as determined by stopping distances in the wet and dry, and anything else deemed suitable. Brakes are perhaps harder to police but I'm sure someone will have an idea as to how.
• how do you expect the traffic cops to judge and police "bad and dangerous driving habits"? - Much as they used to before speed cameras were mass-produced, I suppose. And how they do currently, to a lesser extent. Undertaking, cutting people up, running red lights, inappropriate speed, etc. Hardly rocket science.
• how are you going to re-educate all those drivers? - Public service announcements and incorporating it into driving lessons.

Edit: , where did Janesy_B and stockhausen go?

 

[Dolph]

You can at least credit who the poster was.

But to cover the the reasoning off.

• Motorbike riders account for approximately 4% of traffic and 25% of KSI (killed and serious injury) victims. If you really want to reduce road deaths (at the expense of freedom) then doing it based on evidence is far more likely to be effective.
• Separating pedestrians and cars where possible is one of the best road safety measures going. Engineering trumps behaviour changes every time.
• See above
• Why is enforcing city safety technology a bad idea?
• Why is this a bad idea, the performance difference under braking between bad and good tyres is huge, especially in the wet. Ditto roadholding under acceleration and cornering.
• Why is this a bad idea?
• Why is this a bad idea?

and in response to your list of fallacious responses.

• Because cars are, statistically, massively safer than bikes?
• Because you put barriers separating the pavement and the road, and enforce the jaywalking laws?
• With relative ease, much how airbags and side impact protection became standard. Most manufacturers already have variations on this technology, it is just a case of getting them to implement it.
• Raise the minimum standards required to be sold as road legal equipment? The enforcement structure is already in place and working, the requirements are just not strong enough.
• The same way they used to before both the Tories introduced cameras, and Labour presided over a massive expansion program? With their eyes, perhaps?
• Compulsory retesting is always an option, it just depends how far you are willing to go to reduce injuries.

With regards to your last comment, all I have to say is that your obsession with speed enforcement doesn't achieve any of these aims anyway, as shown by the government's own figures, and as such, any alternative suggestions that are evidence based will have better results.

 

[Jez]

This is not in reply to the topic at hand, as to be honest speed enforcement is something of which i find causes little hinderance in my life, and as such is something which i have few views upon.

I have to wonder though, why this:

embracing Volvo's city safety system for avoiding collisions at low speeds[

Is referred to with Volvo in mind? Radar distance protection has been optionally fitted to the Mercedes S-class range since 1998 - nearly 12 years ago.

Pointless post really but annoying when rather old technology is sighted as being new and revolutionary.

 

[aproctor]

A minimum standard is a good idea for brakes and tyres, my only worry is that the people most likely to buy cheap, dangerous tyres are those which have the least money and i would rather someone be on ebay special pads and new ditchfinders than worn brakes and no tread.

But as with all these things i would want to see some evidence as cheap doesn't alwasy mean bad i.e. Toyo TR1.

In terms of motorbikes i would have thought most of the risk is to the rider and therefore personal choice. When was the last time you heard of motorbike doing in a load of pedestrians Mad Max style?

 

[stockhausen]

<snip>

How many motorcycle accidents DON'T involve some blind motorist, probably talking on a mobile 'phone?

As I understand it, you are now proposing that all roads should be fenced in to keep pedestrians off them? How would people get into their cars? How would the cars get onto these fenced-off roads?

I suspect that the tyre manufacturers and KwikFit would be absolutely delighted if the Government were to raise the standard and cost of all new tyres sold and also massively increase the minimum permissible tread depth.

I take it that you are happy to have the Police randomly decide what is and is not ""bad and dangerous driving" and that their word should be accepted as gospel in court?

Don't a significant number of fatalities and serious injuries as a result of RTAs involve recently qualified drivers? Perhaps it would be a good idea to compel all recently qualified motorists to drive limited power vehicles for five years, display "P" plates and to retake a tougher test twelve months after first passing, having to start all over again if they fail that?


You seem not to have given much thought to the costs of your most interesting ideas

 

[miniyazz]

A minimum standard is a good idea for brakes and tyres, my only worry is that the people most likely to buy cheap, dangerous tyres are those which have the least money and i would rather someone be on ebay special pads and new ditchfinders than worn brakes and no tread.

But as with all these things i would want to see some evidence as cheap doesn't alwasy mean bad i.e. Toyo TR1.

In terms of motorbikes i would have thought most of the risk is to the rider and therefore personal choice. When was the last time you heard of motorbike doing in a load of pedestrians Mad Max style?

I would rather they buy partworns than ditchfinders tbh. It'll also mean that when Joanna Bloggs goes to the garage to get her tyres changed because her MOT said they needed changing, they can't bung on the cheapest ditchfinders in stock because they get the biggest margin from them.

As I understand it, you are now proposing that all roads should be fenced in to keep pedestrians off them? How would people get into their cars? How would the cars get onto these fenced-off roads?

I suspect that the tyre manufacturers and KwikFit would be absolutely delighted if the Government were to raise the standard and cost of all new tyres sold and also massively increase the minimum permissible tread depth.

I take it that you are happy to have the Police randomly decide what is and is not ""bad and dangerous driving" and that their word should be accepted as gospel in court?

Don't a significant number of fatalities and serious injuries as a result of RTAs involve recently qualified drivers? Perhaps it would be a good idea to compel all recently qualified motorists to drive limited power vehicles for five years, display "P" plates and to retake a tougher test twelve months after first passing, having to start all over again if they fail that?


You seem not to have given much thought to the costs of your most interesting ideas

Do police cars not have video cameras installed, therefore providing video evidence of dangerous driving?
And no, no it wouldn't be a good idea for newly qualifieds to be restricted to limited power vehicles only. They would then be unable to overtake safely/pull out on a roundabout or main road swiftly when the need arises. And they'd still be perfectly capable of taking a corner too fast and ending up in a ditch (which I would hazard is one of the main reasons for crashing).

 

[LostPhil]

Don't a significant number of fatalities and serious injuries as a result of RTAs involve recently qualified drivers? Perhaps it would be a good idea to compel all recently qualified motorists to drive limited power vehicles for five years, display "P" plates and to retake a tougher test twelve months after first passing, having to start all over again if they fail that?

They're pretty much forced to in 99% of cases due to huge insurance costs. Less power doesn't mean the car is safer either - you can go 60mph around a corner and through pedestrian areas in a 1.25 Fiesta as much as you can a 2.5 turbo Skyline. EDIT: Miniyazz just made this point better than me!

How about introducing better driving tests? I don't mean computer tests either, I mean time on skid pans, car control courses on special tracks as part of the lead up to the test a la other countries (can't remember which country it was specifically, think it was up in the Netherlands somewhere...)

 

[stockhausen]

...
Radar distance protection has been optionally fitted to the Mercedes S-class range since 1998 - nearly 12 years ago.
...

I believe that a sophisticated radar controlled cruise control system was introduced by Honda even before it was by Mercedes. I don't think that that is exactly the same as the Volvo system whic as I understand it is targeted at city driving. I would entirely agree that in principle it is the basis of a great idea which could be combined with SatNav, road condition and traffic volume info and with luck it would (after some ten to twenty years) significantly reduce tail-gating.

The two most obvious problems are that it is currently likely to be expensive and it would be many years before almost all cars were fitted with it; in the meantime, I suspect that many of the cars involved in serious accidents would remain on the road, driven at breakneck speed by inconsiderate and impatient morons

 

[Dogbreath]

As I understand it, you are now proposing that all roads should be fenced in to keep pedestrians off them? How would people get into their cars? How would the cars get onto these fenced-off roads?

You are (as usual) being facieious.

I suspect that the tyre manufacturers and KwikFit would be absolutely delighted if the Government were to raise the standard and cost of all new tyres sold and also massively increase the minimum permissible tread depth.

Who mentioned massive increases in thread depth? You can already buy tyres with perfectly good performance for not much more than the plastic chinese crap. Dolph is simply suggesting removing the real bottom end of the market where tyres may as well be made from teflon. Your objection to this alone makes me think you are trolling.

I take it that you are happy to have the Police randomly decide what is and is not ""bad and dangerous driving" and that their word should be accepted as gospel in court?

Like they already do and always have?

Don't a significant number of fatalities and serious injuries as a result of RTAs involve recently qualified drivers? Perhaps it would be a good idea to compel all recently qualified motorists to drive limited power vehicles for five years, display "P" plates and to retake a tougher test twelve months after first passing, having to start all over again if they fail that?

It's certainly a possibility, though I'm not convinced it would give a worthwhile reduction in KSI. New drivers typically drive small, lower powered cars anyway due to insurance cost, and still manage to crash them far too often.

You seem not to have given much thought to the costs of your most interesting ideas

You seem to be providing only a negative input for the sake of it (as usual). How about offering some practical suggestions?

 

[Dolph]

How many motorcycle accidents DON'T involve some blind motorist, probably talking on a mobile 'phone?

Why do you think you increase enforcement against bad driving habits (something that speed cameras can't do)? Also the big issue with bikes is lack of protection...

As I understand it, you are now proposing that all roads should be fenced in to keep pedestrians off them? How would people get into their cars? How would the cars get onto these fenced-off roads?

reductio ad ridiculum. I have not proposed all roads should be treated this way, but the vast majority certainly could be. There would be little point in treating every residential cul-de-sac etc this way.

I suspect that the tyre manufacturers and KwikFit would be absolutely delighted if the Government were to raise the standard and cost of all new tyres sold and also massively increase the minimum permissible tread depth.

And that's not a reason to do it why? You seem unable or unwilling to understand the evidence surrounding road safety and determined to plough on with an irrelevant and unproductive approach regardless. You would get on well with Jacqui Smith and Alan Johnson with such an attitude.

I take it that you are happy to have the Police randomly decide what is and is not ""bad and dangerous driving" and that their word should be accepted as gospel in court?

Because we don't already routinely have video cameras in traffic cars?

Don't a significant number of fatalities and serious injuries as a result of RTAs involve recently qualified drivers? Perhaps it would be a good idea to compel all recently qualified motorists to drive limited power vehicles for five years, display "P" plates and to retake a tougher test twelve months after first passing, having to start all over again if they fail that?

Another example of how little understanding you have of road safety. Limiting power doesn't prevent anything, because it doesn't prevent people driving too fast for the conditions (which is unrelated to speed limit frequently), unless you make the car dangerously slow on the motorway.

P plates have no statistical benefit to road safety.

The tougher driving test I have no problem with, could be the first compulsory retest.

You seem not to have given much thought to the costs of your most interesting ideas

Spending money on statistically useful enforcement is money well spent. Presumably you instead think we should keep wasting money on pointless enforcement instead?

 

[Dolph]

Your objection to this alone makes me think you are trolling.

This whole thread is pretty much a troll, much as the repeated assertion that I'd never offered any practical suggestion that is what he copied and pasted (after ignoring the original threads at the first sign of content) was a troll as well. Not to mention the thread title, there was no mention of outright abolishment of speed limits in the post, more of a suggestion that strict enforcement of speed limits doesn't actually provide any statistical benefit, and should therefore be well down the road safety priority list, because speed limits don't actually prevent or reduce accidents.

You seem to be providing only a negative input for the sake of it (as usual). How about offering some practical suggestions?

He has offered suggestions (keep blindly enforcing speed limits), they just don't actually achieve anything productive in the way of road safety benefits.

 

[stockhausen]

Why do you think you increase enforcement against bad driving habits (something that speed cameras can't do)? ...

I don't have any problem with "enforcement against bad driving habits", it is a great idea if just a bit tricky to enforce effectively. Certainly, increased camera surveillance would be a way of achieving it.

... I have not proposed all roads should be treated this way, but the vast majority certainly could be. There would be little point in treating every residential cul-de-sac etc this way. ...

I still think that your idea of fencing in "the vast majority" of public roads is barking mad.

... And that's not a reason to do it why? ...

I am all in favour of people being forced to use safer tyres and brakes. I suspect that it would be difficult to enforce and probably wouldn't make a massive amount of difference to RTAs but is a perfectly reasonable idea.

... Because we don't already routinely have video cameras in traffic cars? ...

Ahhh, I hadn't realised that you were suggesting that the Police should only take action against bad and dangerous driving when supported by video evidence . . . that is different.

... Another example of how little understanding you have of road safety. Limiting power doesn't prevent anything, because it doesn't prevent people driving too fast for the conditions (which is unrelated to speed limit frequently), unless you make the car dangerously slow on the motorway. ...

I would have thought that there was probably some evidence to suggest that a powerful car in the hands of an inexperienced driver was not a good idea but I am sure you are right and that it is in fact much safer.

... P plates have no statistical benefit to road safety. ...

Do any statistics on this actually exist? Since you see these plates perhaps as much as once a year, are any statistics meaningful? I believe that "P" plates or their equivalent are used in some places on the continent; perhaps they have statistics?

... Spending money on statistically useful enforcement is money well spent. Presumably you instead think we should keep wasting money on pointless enforcement instead?

I was under the impression that one of the big complaints about speed cameras is that they make money, so not exactly money wasted then.

Personally, I believe that fixed speed cameras no longer serve any useful purpose. I suspect that mobile speed cameras are much more effective and in my experience, variable speed cameras as occasionally used at roadworks are VERY effective at limiting speeds. I believe that there are statistics to suggest that the variable speed limits used on some motorways (? M25 ?) are very effective at reducing journey times


As to your accusation that my only proposal for reducing death and injury as a result of RTAs is speed limits, that is a straw man.

I am all in favour of significantly reducing the use of private motor vehicles and significantly increasing the reliability and availability of subsidised public transport.

In cities, I would do everything possible to increase the use of bikes for personal transport; a single visit to Holland would show what a good idea they are.

The private motor car in the UK is well past its "Use by date".

 

[miniyazz]

Personally, I believe that fixed speed cameras no longer serve any useful purpose. I suspect that mobile speed cameras are much more effective and in my experience, variable speed cameras as occasionally used at roadworks are VERY effective at limiting speeds. I believe that there are statistics to suggest that the variable speed limits used on some motorways (? M25 ?) are very effective at reducing journey times

Once again, reducing speeds != reducing accidents. And since the purpose of speed cameras is to prevent speeding, speed cameras that are making money are a complete waste of time!

I am all in favour of significantly reducing the use of private motor vehicles and significantly increasing the reliability and availability of subsidised public transport.

In cities, I would do everything possible to increase the use of bikes for personal transport; a single visit to Holland would show what a good idea they are.

The private motor car in the UK is well past its "Use by date".

Public transport, as covered in a previous thread, will never be as comfortable or convenient as the private motor car - neither will the bicycle. While both get you where you want to go, there will always be a big market for private cars, for the foreseeable future at least.
Having said that, improving and cheapening [sic] public transport would no doubt remove a significant proportion of cars from the roads and is something that should without a doubt be done.

*snip*

 

[stockhausen]

... Public transport, as covered in a previous thread, will never be as comfortable or convenient as the private motor car - neither will the bicycle. ...

Public transport may never be as "comfortable". As to convenience, in major cities, I can't say that I would describe driving as being particularly "convenient" and it is becoming less so every day. With the right investment and determination, I beleive that public transport could and eventually will be made more convenient than the use of private cars.

... While both get you where you want to go, there will always be a big market for private cars, for the foreseeable future at least. ...

I suspect that of necessity that market will decline in the future.

... improving and cheapening [sic] public transport would no doubt remove a significant proportion of cars from the roads and is something that should without a doubt be done.

I take it that by "cheapening", you mean reducing the cost of ...

Either way, I am certain that Governments will eventually accept that they must do far more to encourage the use of public transport and the bicycle and to discourage the use of the private motor car although I am not at all sure what this has to do with some naive belief that once left to their own devices, motorists will suddenly drive safely at a sensible speed.

 

[Scania]

More Traffic Cops is whats required imo.

We need Traffic Policing by Officers with experience & common sence rather than Speed cameras that are in the main, revenue generators.

 

[growse]

Either way, I am certain that Governments will eventually accept that they must do far more to encourage the use of public transport and the bicycle and to discourage the use of the private motor car although I am not at all sure what this has to do with some naive belief that once left to their own devices, motorists will suddenly drive safely at a sensible speed.

This argument only applies in places where there is already a significant public transport infrastructure in place. Every day, I commute across London (Ealing to Old Street) - a motorbike is far quicker, cheaper, more convenient and more comfortable than going on the tube. Until I can catch a non-crowded, comfortable tube that gets me to work for £50pm in under an hour, it's always going to be in my interest to use a motorbike. The tube may be faster than a car, but personally I don't think it's more convenient or comfortable. Besides, what's wrong with trying to make a convenient / comfortable mode of transport *safer*, rather than a safe mode of transport convenient?

I'd be amazed to see *any* public transport infrastructure that can carry me, my partner and a whole bunch of luggage from my home (Ealing) to a small village in Cheshire in under 3 hours and £40. I'd also be amazed to see how much that infrastructure would cost.

 

[stockhausen]

This argument only applies in places where there is already a significant public transport infrastructure in place. Every day, I commute across London (Ealing to Old Street) - a motorbike is far quicker, cheaper, more convenient and more comfortable than going on the tube. Until I can catch a non-crowded, comfortable tube that gets me to work for £50pm in under an hour, it's always going to be in my interest to use a motorbike. ...

Ealing is in Zone 3; a suitable monthly Travelcard currently costs £116. How much does it cost you to run a motorbike for a year? I would imagine that with a significant reduction in the number of cars and motorbikes on the roads, it would take you less than an hour to cycle from Ealing to Old Street, it would certainly cost less and should be much healthier for you

... Besides, what's wrong with trying to make a convenient / comfortable mode of transport *safer*, rather than a safe mode of transport convenient? ...

I suspect that in time, the question will cease to have any meaning in that most forms of private transport will be thoroughly inconvenient in major cities. It would seem to make sense to me to start planning for that sooner rather than later.

... I'd be amazed to see *any* public transport infrastructure that can carry me, my partner and a whole bunch of luggage from my home (Ealing) to a small village in Cheshire in under 3 hours and £40. I'd also be amazed to see how much that infrastructure would cost.

I very much doubt that it actually costs you just £40 to "carry you, your partner and a whole bunch of luggage from your home (Ealing) to a small village in Cheshire" - perhaps you are just talking about the cost of petrol? However, I do accept that local journeys in major cities and towns are a much more significant and pressing issue than the occasional leisurely trip from Ealing to Cheshire.

 

[Janesy B]

I could buy, insure and run a moped for a year for less then what my travelcard costs. Prices are going to increase yet again so I may decide to suffer riding a 125cc scooter because I'm fed up with a transit system that's slow, crowded and expensive.

If everyone ditched their cars and used public transport, the whole system would go into meltdown. It's crowded enough as it is and they want more people to try and ram themselves on to a crowded train.

 

[growse]

Ealing is in Zone 3; a suitable monthly Travelcard currently costs £116. How much does it cost you to run a motorbike for a year? I would imagine that with a significant reduction in the number of cars and motorbikes on the roads, it would take you less than an hour to cycle from Ealing to Old Street, it would certainly cost less and should be much healthier for you

But the actual time taken is more than just the travel time, because I have to change, shower etc. when I get to work. I've cycled to work before and this typically adds in 20 mins to the total time. I'd be fitter, yes, but I wouldn't say it was either comfortable or convenient.

I suspect that in time, the question will cease to have any meaning in that most forms of private transport will be thoroughly inconvenient in major cities. It would seem to make sense to me to start planning for that sooner rather than later.

So basically, we'll have a choice between an inconvenient but comfortable means of transport, and a inconvenient and uncomfortable means of transport? As Janesy_B notes above, if you take people off the road and into public transport, you push the capacity limits of public transport even further, making it even more unpracticle, unreliable and inconvenient.

I very much doubt that it actually costs you just £40 to "carry you, your partner and a whole bunch of luggage from your home (Ealing) to a small village in Cheshire" - perhaps you are just talking about the cost of petrol? However, I do accept that local journeys in major cities and towns are a much more significant and pressing issue than the occasional leisurely trip from Ealing to Cheshire.

I was talking just about petrol, and it's something I do every fortnight, so I'd hardly call it occasional. Millions of journeys are made every day that cover significant distance between places where it's just plain impractical to use public transport. Because of the hub-spoke model that public transport tends to follow, this will *always* be the case, whether ther alternative is the car (today) or the personal helicopter (at unspecified future point).

*edit* don't get me wrong, I love public transport, when it works. There's a huge number of occasions in my life where public transport has been the best way of getting from A to B, and I thorougly appreciate its existence. There's a huge amount that could be done to improve it, in erms of investment, but lets not kid ourselves that it's the answer to everyone's transport needs, because it doesn't even come close.