50mp limits

[st4]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/article5864847.ece?Submitted=true

Discuss.

For one I am outraged. We give those clowns let by the one eyed clown our money to spend on our infrastucture. They should be building more motorways and improving the roads we have, not nationalising our banks.

I don't even think this is about money putting spy cameras everywhere. Even the dregs of our society are bright enough to figure out average speed cameras but its more sinister. Its about curtailment of enjoyment, control and this goes hand in hand with a government led by a marxist thinker like brown.

Now its time for some fresh thinking and this would work better.

In ST4s motoring world motorways would be devoid of speed limits apart from minimum ones (but they'd be tests and courses one would need to be able to access these). Adverse weather conditions would see an advisory limit and that might be enforced more actively.

Dual carriage ways would have a speed limit, but enforcement would be pretty laid back . In towns 30 is about fine and enforcement would be active and visible. Not some spy van taking your picture, but visible cops.

Roads that were good driving roads, (A82 up glen coe) would have limits but would be completely enforcement free. (no big brother state in ST4's country) for drivers who pay VED, VAT etc to enjoy.

Driving is one of lifes great pleasures and we should fight more to protect driving as we know it rather than lie down and take this carbon this global that cr4p, safety this, camera that sh**.

 

[turnipsock]

The bit on the A80 past Cumbernauld is a 50, it seems pointless as nobody drives that slow on there. The North Lanarkshire council are responsible for the limits on these roads and seem to have very low limits. They built a bit of road at the start of the A73 that was like a motorway and then put a 40 mph limit on it!

It seems to me cars are getting more safe but the speed limits are coming down all the time.

 

[television]

The bit on the A80 past Cumbernauld is a 50, it seems pointless as nobody drives that slow on there. The North Lanarkshire council are responsible for the limits on these roads and seem to have very low limits. They built a bit of road at the start of the A73 that was like a motorway and then put a 40 mph limit on it!

It seems to me cars are getting more safe but the speed limits are coming down all the time.

The answer lies in your avatar picture

 

[Quick Silver]

Methinks it's time for acts of civil disobediance against the establishment !

 

[Alex M Grieve]

It seems to me cars are getting more safe but the speed limits are coming down all the time.

I attach below a note received from a Road Safety Liaison Officer in Warwickshire. My thesis was (and is) that it is not speed that kills, but bad driving behaviours which go almost entirely undetected by the authorites. They are therefore unpunished and not discouraged.

"Dear Dr Grieve,
Enquiry Reference: 1969 Road Safety Feedback
Thank you for your Webfeedback dated 19 May 2008 concerning road safety in Warwickshire. We have noted your comments with regards to improving safety on the County's roads. Obviously, influencing driver behaviour is a key element of our current safety strategy and therefore you will be interested to learn that our Unit, along with the Police, work in many institutions such as schools, colleges and work places to raise awareness of road safety. We run the National Driving Improvement Scheme, along with numerous other initiatives aimed at vulnerable road users such as the Young Driver of the Year Competition. For further information, please visit our website at www.warwickshire.gov.uk/roadsafety.
The word 'accidents' is rarely used and wherever possible the term 'crash'
or 'collision' is stated instead.
Unfortunately, speed does play a major part in road crashes and statistically is a major contributory factor. The reckless driver who dangerously overtakes, is only doing so, so that they can drive at a faster speed than the posted limit or the appropriate road conditions.
If you are referring to the recent Speed Limit Review, which the Council has undertaken, then speed limits will only be changed where existing traffic speeds are close to the proposed speed limits, therefore an average speed of say 52mph on a de-restricted road could mean that a new speed limit of 50mph could be installed with already strong existing compliance.
I also note your comment regarding street furniture. Sign clutter is a significant issue, and therefore a great deal of thought goes into where new sings go. For example, our SpeedAware initiative uses temporary posts and sockets instead of traditional poles to support our signs. This therefore avoids unnecessary post clutter. However, you may be interested to learn of our new RouteAware scheme which we intend to trial along the Fosse Way and A45. These roads have a significant crash history and therefore we are trialing message signs that state the no. of casualties to ensure that drivers at least Think! about their actions. Such signs have been very effective in other areas such as Thames Valley."

Within the past 2 weeks, it seems that Warwickshire have introduced a blanket 50 mph speed limit on A Roads. So from the note above, they have restricted further roads on which there was already strong existing compliance.

Having followed other motorists who have now reduced their speeds to around 40-45 mph, and drive for mile after mile at that speed, it is clear that others will become frustrated by this and will overtake, perhaps/probably unsafely.

Sadly, with rules of this sort, Grieve's Law of Rules applies - "the good guys don't need them and the bad guys won't heed them"!

I am sure that the blanket speed limit (I was not aware of any consultation or information process - it just appeared) will almost certainly precede cameras and revenue generation.

The hapless people who did drive badly, and to whom there are now roadside shrines, will not benefit, and their successors won't either.

 

[teddycatkin]

As motorists it seems we are easy targets and a huge source of revenue from all who jump on the bandwagen ? parking -tax -fuel- fines where will it all end?
Cumb up to Perth is an exellent bit of road turnipsock-I know it well you have to be careful or you miss the turning for Gleneagles so easilly!!

 

[delboy777]

Listen guys its 1984 via the back door. I am ashamed that the so called PM of this country is Scottish. Him and his ilk will be the ruin of this countrys freedoms, its time that ordinary folk stood up and be counted, otherwise in 20 years time you wont be driving your MB,just some euro box on wheels that will in all likelyhood be a piece of trash. Savour it while you have it because believe you me we are all going to suffer. !!!

 

[HERBIEMERCMAN]

i agree with your frustrations, i never thought i would ever see 80 mph bumper to bumper convoys on our m/ways, with the inside lanes virtually empty. i live in lacashire and travel to scotland a lot, with my satnav and due attention i don't have a problem with speed. when i visit my daughter in essex speed is completely irrelavant which ever route i choose CONGESTION is the major issue unless you travel during the night. the toll road is great, now close on £5 for the 15 miles. sorry to go back to the old chestnut of government bashing, but boy do we need some more roads, the m25 and m6 are a complete joke and death trap. herbiemercman.

 

[Parrot of Doom]

Unfortunately, speed does play a major part in road crashes and statistically is a major contributory factor. The reckless driver who dangerously overtakes, is only doing so, so that they can drive at a faster speed than the posted limit or the appropriate road conditions.

I hope you pulled him up on this blatent lie.

If you are referring to the recent Speed Limit Review, which the Council has undertaken, then speed limits will only be changed where existing traffic speeds are close to the proposed speed limits, therefore an average speed of say 52mph on a de-restricted road could mean that a new speed limit of 50mph could be installed with already strong existing compliance.

Oh dear, not a statistician is he? An average speed of 52mph means that up to 50% of motorists would be criminalised if the speed limit were set at 50mph, and not the 85th percentile.


What a very silly plan by this government. It will be widely ignored by any skilled driver except those who blindly follow the signs and who do not read the road conditions. It will make some roads significantly more dangerous as frustrated and poorly-skilled drivers attempt to overtake at dangerous spots.

This government really do not want people to enjoy driving a car. They are spineless clueless control freaks, they're most likely out of office (and jobs) next year, and they're ****ting it.

 

[jberks]

I'd like to see an experiment. Remove all fines for speeding offences. Keep the points, which in reality is the only real deterrent, and then lets see how excited the establishment gets about speeding offences.

Everyone with a brain cell knows full well that its not speed perse', but innapropriate speed, coupled more often than not, with poor driving skill and badly maintained cars that causes collisions. I followed a line of cars in a 60 yesterday. All doing 45 - not sure why - probably a granny somewhere, but one car was determined to get through and was overtaking at every opportunity. Many times I held my breath as I did't believe he had time, but in this case he gotaway with it. Had the traffic been travelling at 60, I suspect he'd have stayed were he was. I know the road is unsafe top overtake on with hidden dips and side roads, and it doesn't last long, so frustrated or not, I stayed where I was.

There was a police show on tv with a nasty motorway collision in it. Someone had been driving along the middle lane, attempted to pull out to let someone out, glanced over her shoulder, seen nothing, and then when she looked back and started to pull out, seen another car on her outside, then all hell broke loose and 2 cars ended up on their roofs. In other words, she wasn't aware of what was around her, wasn't aware of what traffic was in the outside lane, hadn't planned ahead or anticipated at all, taken no notice of the situation in the inner lane and what was potentially going to happen in the next 60 seconds etc. Driving to the end of the bonnet - just plain bad driving. The accident was her fault. No speeding involved so no action from the police. What about a mandatory motorway driving course for these people? What about some education to make sure this doesn't happen again? No, nothing, speed, speed, speed is the stuck and discredited loop running around in the authorities minds. If you're not esceeding the speed limit, you're safe.

Hence the statement "The reckless driver who dangerously overtakes, is only doing so, so that they can drive at a faster speed than the posted limit or the appropriate road conditions." is insane and insulting to our intelligence. Sure there are such people, but they are in the minority and we look for police patrol cars to evaluate the situation and deal with them appropriatly, not dumb cameras. The powers that be still think that if they say something the public will belive them. This govt put paid to that. I will overtake (if I can find a safe enough gap) on a single carriageway if the limit is 60 and the muppet up front is doing 48. I will probably get to 70 in order to pass quickly, then settle down to 60.

Ok, I want the idiot doing 100 in a single carriageway 60 prosecuted too. But that falls under the innapropriate for the conditions criteria. 90% of prosecutions would fail that test.

 

[st4]

The roads are very safe. 3000 or so deaths/yr is very low compared to the regularity, frequencey and volume of traffic and number of people who use the roads each year. Its a number to be proud of that so few die out there on the roads. The human body remember isn't designed to travel faster than it can propel itself (12mph) so unless we travel @ these speeds folk will die, its a part of life and we should accept it. If folk can't, then they should travel by alternative means.

 

[PanzerMcGrory]

The bit on the A80 past Cumbernauld is a 50, it seems pointless as nobody drives that slow on there. The North Lanarkshire council are responsible for the limits on these roads and seem to have very low limits. They built a bit of road at the start of the A73 that was like a motorway and then put a 40 mph limit on it!

It seems to me cars are getting more safe but the speed limits are coming down all the time.

Below is an e-mail i sent to the minister of transport regarding this issue last year.
I eventually got a reply which as ever answered nothing however looks like they are eventually starting to work on the M80 upgrade, sorry glorified dual carriageway as is the norm up here.

Dear Mr Stevenson,

I am e-mailing regarding our trunk roads and the speed limits that are applied to them.

I travel the A80 daily and i believe that work should have commenced by now upgrading it to motorway status however there seems to be no news of the work commencing, can you advice of when the work will commence?

There appears to be a policy that any new stretch of trunk road in Scotland carries a 50MPH speed limit which is very disappointing to motorists and must also be for business.
Transport Scotland will trumpet how safe the M77 is with this speed limit and the use of average speed cameras to enforce it however if you take that argument to the extreme then you would have 30MPH limits on the worlds safest motorways. The result of these reduced speed limits is motorists totally frustrated and some businesses more likely to move down south especially when coupled with rising fuel costs.

On the A80 there is one new stretch of road which replaced the auckinkilns roundabout and unsurprisingly this stretch of road which is only a few hundred yards long has a 50MPH speed limit with the result being vehicles approach this new stretch of road from a very poor A80 at 70mph then there is a dangerous bottleneck as traffic slows to 50mph to travel along the best section of the A80 at 50mph before being allowed yet again to travel at 70mph on the rest of the very poor A80. Can you please inform me why new stretches of trunk road have to be of a reduced speed limit?

Finally when the M80 is completed can i ask that it continues to have a 70mph speed limit.
In Scotland we always appear to get motorways on the cheap with only two lanes in each direction meaning that they are always unfit for purpose and I believe that motorists and business alike would rather travel on an old A80 at 70mph than to be held back on a new M80 at a reduced speed limit as there would be no benefit whatsoever in new four lane motorway with a speed limit under 70mph replacing a four lane dual carriageway with a speed limit of 70mph.

I hope that you will give my concerns some consideration as I believe they are the concerns of most who use our motorway network.

Yours,

Don McGrory

 

[Parrot of Doom]

I'd like to see an experiment. Remove all fines for speeding offences. Keep the points, which in reality is the only real deterrent, and then lets see how excited the establishment gets about speeding offences.

I have a better experiment. Ban the use of speedometers, remove speed limits, and have rigorous enforcement of safe driving by traffic police tasked only to road duties.

A speedometer should not be required to drive safely. I drove one of my cars without one for almost a year, it makes no difference to one's ability to negotiate hazards.

 

[jibcl500]

Gordy Browny is looking for money, the cash it will generate will cover the cash hes lost on the banks and everything else.

People die in cars because they dont pay attention, its simple if your a crap driver you crash and die, thats good it means the roads are a safer place.

If you kill someone because, you drove too fast or sent a text or drank too much then you too should be shot.

Its all about money.

I followed a nearly dead the other day, 45mph when we could all be doing 60, got the the 40 limit and they still drove at 45, got to the 30 limit and they still did 45. I can only assume the reason being they dont know what the limits are.

jib


jib

 

[st4]

Gordy Browny is looking for money, the cash it will generate will cover the cash hes lost on the banks and everything else.

People die in cars because they dont pay attention, its simple if your a crap driver you crash and die, thats good it means the roads are a safer place.

If you kill someone because, you drove too fast or sent a text or drank too much then you too should be shot.

Its all about money.

I followed a nearly dead the other day, 45mph when we could all be doing 60, got the the 40 limit and they still drove at 45, got to the 30 limit and they still did 45. I can only assume the reason being they dont know what the limits are.

jib


jib

Agree with all you say bar the bit in bold.

People who kill others on the road by momentarily losing control usually repent their actions and don't intend to kill. Punishment by death seems a tad harsh.

People who deliberately kill by shooting, stabbing, blow up public places, rape, etc should be shot. Killing someone by accident isn't malicious and shouldn't be met by that. Crime should be prosecuted by intent, not conseuquence. i.e. attempted murder should carry the same punishment as murder.

 

[Alex M Grieve]

Agree with all you say bar the bit in bold.

People who kill others on the road by momentarily losing control usually repent their actions and don't intend to kill. Punishment by death seems a tad harsh.

Killing someone by accident isn't malicious and shouldn't be met by that. Crime should be prosecuted by intent, not conseuquence. i.e. attempted murder should carry the same punishment as murder.

The net outcome for the recipient is the same.

But you hit the point precisely. Momentarily losing control is not an "accident". In all the examples where "speed plays a major part", the causative factor is the collision - not the speed. Speed may influence the amount of harm done, but it is not the cause. It is the collision of pedestrian and car, or the collision of car with car. And that is what we have to focus on preventing.

Sadly speed limits, and prosecutions for speeding, do no beging to address the problem. They are targetting the outcome, not the cause.

And current driver training and the driving test do little to help. A more fundamental review of driver competence and attitude should be required and that should be applicable to all current motorists, not just new ones. After all, if we did not authorise any new drivers for the next 5 years, the currently "qualified" drivers would keep the scoreboard ticking along unhindered.

We have a serious, deep rooted institutionalsed problem in our midst and a society which will not or can not acknowledge the cause. And even if they did, there is a lack of the will to deal with it effectively.

 

[st4]

The net outcome for the recipient is the same.

But you hit the point precisely. Momentarily losing control is not an "accident". In all the examples where "speed plays a major part", the causative factor is the collision - not the speed. Speed may influence the amount of harm done, but it is not the cause. It is the collision of pedestrian and car, or the collision of car with car. And that is what we have to focus on preventing.

Sadly speed limits, and prosecutions for speeding, do no beging to address the problem. They are targetting the outcome, not the cause.

And current driver training and the driving test do little to help. A more fundamental review of driver competence and attitude should be required and that should be applicable to all current motorists, not just new ones. After all, if we did not authorise any new drivers for the next 5 years, the currently "qualified" drivers would keep the scoreboard ticking along unhindered.

We have a serious, deep rooted institutionalsed problem in our midst and a society which will not or can not acknowledge the cause. And even if they did, there is a lack of the will to deal with it effectively.

I deliberately avoided the word accident, as they aren't accidents but caused by human error. You cannot ever fully eradicate human error, for this is a part of life. We are not perfect beings, we'll only have 0% collisions if all our cars were driven by computers and even these break.

However even in my short commute upto clydebank I always see an exhibit of poor driving and think we, as a nation, could be doing better behind the wheel. We should be proud of our driving, but too many young ones boast about how may cars they've totalled, thats not right IMHO. Totalling a car should be something one is ashamed of, as it shows that you are not good at something you do. Maybe this is the problem you are actually getting at, people have no desire to improve what they do and how they do it.

You could describe a collision as an accident only by the fact it was not intended by the driver who caused it. The outcome may be tragic, but they didn't intend it to be so, however the way they've driven might have been so bad that its negligence on their side (overtaking on a blind corner) that its gone to the extent that they intentionally didn't avoid a collision. Driving a car blind drunk might fall into this category, and the collision was completely avoidable and it was apparent to the guilty party that this would be the case, yet they pressed on regardless. Then I would take jibscl500's angle more, maybe not shooting them, but removing a limb so they cannot drive again. I have mentioned Jim to you before have I not, he killed someone as he was drunk in a car, did 3 years time, and still drinks and drives. Someone like that who cannot learn from their mistakes might fall into the limb removal category, just to keep the rest of us safe.

Perhaps those that cause collisions, purely though a mistake and no negligence, should be made to go on driver improvement sessions, a bit like an IAM course. Actually everyone should do this but I fear the complexities in administering this would be all to great.

Perhaps every 10yrs a motorist should have to do a refresher driving course, a bit like an observed run on the IAM. This woudn't be so hard to administer and could be run by driving instructors who issued a certificate saying this had been done.

Retesting is pointless as you can cheat it, for example a driver who repeatedly and intentionally flouts the law will be on best behaviour for the test and pass it, then go back out there and cause mahem for the next 10yrs before he is tested again.

 

[hairyg]

Many but not all accidents are the result of inappropriate speed. I have no argument with that statement.

However, what constitures an appropriate speed will vary according to weather, time of day, type of vehicle, state of vehicle maintenance, driver training and experience and so on.

Any speed limit set will be either too high or too low most of the time. The only truly safe limit is zero mph and this government seems to be working towards that, at least in our cities.

What really gets up my nose though is the gross imposition of arbitary limits on a mostly law abiding population to reduce the already amazing low figure of 3000 deaths per year when, by their own figures, the NHS kills more than three times that many people each year.

Yet again the motorist is an easy target

 

[jibcl500]

Agree with all you say bar the bit in bold.

People who kill others on the road by momentarily losing control usually repent their actions and don't intend to kill. Punishment by death seems a tad harsh.

People who deliberately kill by shooting, stabbing, blow up public places, rape, etc should be shot. Killing someone by accident isn't malicious and shouldn't be met by that. Crime should be prosecuted by intent, not conseuquence. i.e. attempted murder should carry the same punishment as murder.

ST4

point taken, but if someone high on drugs steals your Mercedes and then kills 2 people because he she was under the influence then they deserve to be shot
If someone is sending text and doesnt see the lolly pop lady guiding the kids across the road and kids 4 kids then the deserve to be shot
Someone driving on black ice, they cant see if but they spin and hit another car and someone dies, surely then there should be soemone with an once of sense to work out that it was know fault of the drivers but the condition of the roads etc etc.
I had to follow a women the other day through the village, she was looking for a house number and in the process moved from one side of the road to the other, speed 15 mph, after 200 or so meters I gave it the horns. she nearly had a head on collision at one point, she also had two kids in chairs on the back seat.


jib

 

[Alex M Grieve]

Many but not all accidents are the result of inappropriate speed. I have no argument with that statement.

What is innapproriate espeed? A young footballer drives, having drunk too much. Although he is driving correctly, he is hit by an incompetent driver and harm results. The footballer is breathalysed and then vilified!

The arguement that "accidents are the result of speed" would (not could) be used in this case to establish beyond all doubt that either being a footballer, or having drunk alcohol, or both was the cause of he collision. It was probably not even a contributory factor.

I agree with your use of the term "innapporpriate speed", but who decides. My man from Warwickshire would have argued, "there was a collision, therefore the speed was innappropriate". The footballer had drunk, therefore the drink caused it.

Sadly, from the national newspapers today we learn; Warwickshire appear to be market leaders and exemplars in this field, the decisions they are taking are enforceable, speed limits of 50 mph have been imposed, they are moving towards speed cameras without warning.

"appropriate speed" is therefore likely to be defined as "the speed at which the least competent motorist will not have a collision", and we will all be compelled to drive at that speed or less.

Well, collisions occur in Tesco's car park at less than 3 mph!

Now, where do I find a man with a red flag?