My latest letter to the department of transport

[st4]

I happened to CC autocar in on this too.

This NSL, 50mph thing has really hacked me off so I wrote this to them re reducing the NSL

Reducing the NSL is quite frankly a waste of time....

We have a very low accident rate on our roads, and only 3k deaths/yr is an excellent figure and something we should be proud of, not something that needs improvement. This on 1st impressions may seem callous but given that the human body isn't designed to travel @ speeds greater than the speed in which it can propel itself (10mph) its a miracle given the number of journeys undertaken, and the number of people who travel on the roads each year. Its a credit to modern car design as much as it is a credit to road design and crash barrier improvements.

My next point comes down to driver ability. All drivers, are tought in the L test, to evaluate the speed of their vehicle relative to the conditions they are driving in. A speed limit is pointless. If a person is unable to work out the speed they should drive on they quite frankly deserve to crash and die, its one less to worry about as this country is over populated enough. A speed sign nannying them shouldn't be require, two eyes and a switched on mind are.

Furthermore it brings all drivers down to the lowest level, why should the "unfit" (to use darwinian theory) prevent the rest of us (the "fit") from travelling at a higher speed because they lack the basic skill of turning the wheel, applying the brakes, and looking for hazards at 60mph. Life is full of hazards and risks, why should the roads be any different.

People die, its a fact of life and reducing the NSL to 50mph won't change that as people will find the new speeds too slow to drive at and get frustrated, fall asleep, and when they do crash will still be travelling at speeds 5x greater (and be subject to double this if they do the unthinkable and hit another car) when they do.

Really, to nanny state us to complete safety, the speed limit needs to be 5mph everywhere (so if we hit another car we are only sunject to forces of a 10mph hit). Or do a really ungreen thing and cut down all tree's near roads, that means if Barry Chav decides to flee the tarmac in a cloud of buckfast fueled madness, its just an ego thats bruised in a field, not a car fully laden of burberry hooded chavs. Actually don't, I find enough of my tax goes to the job seekers.

And what of putting big brother average speed camera's everywhere. Is that not really the same as electronically tagging us, like they do released child molestors. I am not one of those specimans of animal life, (and nor am I one who can't judge when to use speeds of 60mph) so really leave the roads to us, and save our money for keeping them in a state that doesn't buckle our alloy wheels, damage our suspensions are rip our front spoilers off.

Regards

Stephen Taylor

You can bother the nanny state by emailing them @ roadsafetyconsultation@dft.gsi.gov.uk

Or going here

 

[busby20]

I happened to CC autocar in on this too.

This NSL, 50mph thing has really hacked me off so I wrote this to them re reducing the NSL

Reducing the NSL is quite frankly a waste of time....

We have a very low accident rate on our roads, and only 3k deaths/yr is an excellent figure and something we should be proud of, not something that needs improvement. This on 1st impressions may seem callous but given that the human body isn't designed to travel @ speeds greater than the speed in which it can propel itself (10mph) its a miracle given the number of journeys undertaken, and the number of people who travel on the roads each year. Its a credit to modern car design as much as it is a credit to road design and crash barrier improvements.

My next point comes down to driver ability. All drivers, are tought in the L test, to evaluate the speed of their vehicle relative to the conditions they are driving in. A speed limit is pointless. If a person is unable to work out the speed they should drive on they quite frankly deserve to crash and die, its one less to worry about as this country is over populated enough. A speed sign nannying them shouldn't be require, two eyes and a switched on mind are.

Furthermore it brings all drivers down to the lowest level, why should the "unfit" (to use darwinian theory) prevent the rest of us (the "fit") from travelling at a higher speed because they lack the basic skill of turning the wheel, applying the brakes, and looking for hazards at 60mph. Life is full of hazards and risks, why should the roads be any different.

People die, its a fact of life and reducing the NSL to 50mph won't change that as people will find the new speeds too slow to drive at and get frustrated, fall asleep, and when they do crash will still be travelling at speeds 5x greater (and be subject to double this if they do the unthinkable and hit another car) when they do.

Really, to nanny state us to complete safety, the speed limit needs to be 5mph everywhere (so if we hit another car we are only sunject to forces of a 10mph hit). Or do a really ungreen thing and cut down all tree's near roads, that means if Barry Chav decides to flee the tarmac in a cloud of buckfast fueled madness, its just an ego thats bruised in a field, not a car fully laden of burberry hooded chavs. Actually don't, I find enough of my tax goes to the job seekers.

And what of putting big brother average speed camera's everywhere. Is that not really the same as electronically tagging us, like they do released child molestors. I am not one of those specimans of animal life, (and nor am I one who can't judge when to use speeds of 60mph) so really leave the roads to us, and save our money for keeping them in a state that doesn't buckle our alloy wheels, damage our suspensions are rip our front spoilers off.

Regards

Stephen Taylor

You can bother the nanny state by emailing them @ roadsafetyconsultation@dft.gsi.gov.uk

Or going here

Speed limits are POINTLESS!! everyone breaks them, so the state wins everytime by imposing massive amounts of fines. let's face it, if governments REALLY wanted to keep speeds down, the technology exists to manage cars electronically which would control speeds, and, speeds relevant to locations utilising GPS technology.

We live in a quiet cul de sac, which has 3 bends, fairly steep gradient, and culminates in a tee junction. After years of petitioning the local council for a "20" zone, we finally got it!-----what a total waste of time! the unthinking idiots (that don't have pets, children, grandchildren etc.) and the little morons with their superfast skateboards, continue to accelerate madly down the street without a thought or care for the children, pets, or the "advisory" 20. will they ever get caught or penalised - where it really matters? not a chance in hell! however, if i'm cruising down a motorway with 4 lanes, at 80/90 what are the chances I will get caught and punished either by extremely expensive "traffic" cars and their crews, and/or the obligatory money making cameras? no prizes for the correct answer

The whole situation is extremely hypocritical, if you don't want excessive speed, climate damage etc., then legislate against these very things with the car manufacturers-------not in ANYBODY'S lifetime!!

 

[S.Speed]

I so totally 100% agree with both of the previous comments...
Many, many years ago when speed cameras were first appearing, I read an article in one of the motoring magazines..
It was an interview with an "official" who was endorsing the use of these so called safety cameras..
I remember the guy from the motor magazine asking " What happens when everyone is an automaton and never ever drives even 1mph over the limit.. Your speed cameras will be a waste of money, surely"?

The answer from the "official" shouldn't surprise anyone..
He said "Well we will just lower all the speed limits"

Does this sound a little familiar to anyone??
This ****** country is getting sadder by the day !

 

[youspurs1]

It's all about money. If they reduce the speed limit they reduce the number of and/or the severity of accidents, consequently they reduce the cost in policing and NHS, to say nothing of the increase in incomes from speeding fines and tax on increased insurance premiums caused by same.. Reducing speed limits will save the government x millions.
I will obey the limits, whatever they are. If they are reduced, and I am going slower if/when I hit somebody, there is a reduced likelihood of injury.
As st4 says, we already have some of the safest roads in the world. I would be interested to see the results of any surveys that have been conducted to determine the optimum speed limits.

 

[rholmesa]

Speed Limits ...

Reducing the NSL will NOT improve road safety - unless the MAD drivers adhere to the new one.

The majority of people involved in so-called 'speed related' accidents really don't care about speed limits, so lowering them will make no difference.

I fully agree with the previous comments - fully aware and competent drivers KNOW what is a safe speed. There is no way I would do even 30mph driving past a school when the kids are leaving! Kids believe they are indestructible, and however annoying they might be - they do not deserve to be hit by cars travelling at inappropriate speeds.

They have recently installed test cameras (at huge cost) on a dual carriageway nearby because of a recent bad accident. NSL on the road so 70mph limit in theory. A recent report on the results stated that they had 'clocked' one driver doing 90mph! Reducing the speed limit will NOT slow that lunatic down.

The majority suffer for the behaviour of the small minority.

I actually adhere to speed limits for the vast majority of my driving, though as they get lower and lower it gets more-and-more frustrating so to do. I have been driving for 35 years with only one accident (which was ENTIRELY my own fault due to calelessness - thankfully the only damage was to my car and pride - no casualties!).

(climbs down from soap box to rest!)

Rgds

 

[youspurs1]

A recent report on the results stated that they had 'clocked' one driver doing 90mph! Reducing the speed limit will NOT slow that lunatic down.

The majority suffer for the behaviour of the small minority.

No laws would slow that idiot down. He will either be lucky, and grow out of the speeding, be in a serious accident, or be caught enough times to be banned.
We are not being made to suffer because of the likes of him! We are being taxed!!
Reducing speed limits reduces government spending and increases government income.
"Simples, psshh"

 

[Alex M Grieve]

Attitude, behaviour, training.

are all fundamental to safe road use, or indeed to the safe conduct of any task.

Speed does not cause accidents - bumping into other cars, people or inanimate objects is the cause of the problem.

The argument for reducing the speed limit to 20 mph is that a pedestrian hit at that speed would suffer less damage. But the pedestrian who behaves thoughtfully and correctly does not suffer damage.

Road safety is the responsibility of all road users. Revised speed limits won't alter that, and won't stop "accidents".

 

[S.Speed]

I live in a rural area and in a nearby village a friend of mine owns a cumputer repair business..
I notice a petition on his counter that he was trying to get everyone to sign..
The petition was to try to get the speed limit lowered from 40mph to 20mph..
I refused to sign and had a right old todo with him..
He said arent you aware of the ****** Boy racers around here???

I answered him by saying The Boy Racers who do 60 / 70 / 80 / 90 in souped up Sierra Cosworths are not obeying the law now !!So what makes him think they will suddenly see the light just because there are pretty signs saying 20..

I also commented that such an unrealisticly slow speed would cause me great inconvenience..

To date the speed limit has NOT been altered and I for one hope it stays that way!

 

[st4]

The argument for reducing the speed limit to 20 mph is that a pedestrian hit at that speed would suffer less damage. But the pedestrian who behaves thoughtfully and correctly does not suffer damage.

Road safety is the responsibility of all road users. Revised speed limits won't alter that, and won't stop "accidents".

True, and it allows the car greater room to stop.

However the emphasis needs to be put onto padestrian awareness (after all if the car hits them, its them thats going to be injured, the car driver will be just fine). How many folk walk about completely unaware of their surroudings due to their moronic inability to go anywhere without a music playing device blocking their next most vital sense after eye sight?

Want to make the place safer, ban iPods (after all the nanny state regulates agaisnt everything else). as their usage prevents people having an awareness for whats going on around them in area's that its paramount to be able to hear.

 

[Alex M Grieve]

Want to make the place safer, ban iPods (after all the nanny state regulates agaisnt everything else). as their usage prevents people having an awareness for whats going on around them in area's that its paramount to be able to hear.

And hoods - they restrict vision significantly.

 

[JEZ.S320L]

And hoods - they restrict vision significantly.

Umbrella's - restricts vision.

Spectacles - become misted-up/splattered with rain - restricts vision

 

[BarnDoor]

Female pedestrians in summer clothing no doubt also cause accidents involving white vans

 

[Alex M Grieve]

Female pedestrians in summer clothing no doubt also cause accidents involving white vans

"Was she wearing any"? :lol:

 

[oigle]

If you want some REAL proof to enable you to write to the official bodies, have a read of this official site from The US re the connection between speed and road deaths in the years 1995 - 1997, when the US INCREASED their speed limits. Makes interesting reading.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa346.pdf

 

[youspurs1]

A very interesting read, oigle. Thanks.