DfT recommendations for M-way capacity management include toll lane for higher speeds

[Ravel]

Clearly if you get hit by an articulated lorry doing 55, then you'll be more hurt than if it was doing 5 MPH......

However the only way it'd hit you at 55 is if you were dumb enough to walk across a motorway, in which case it'd probably be a blessing that your genes were removed from the pool.

Speed is not per se, a cause of accidents, otherwise motorways would theoretically be constant streams of carnage - they're not.

RTFP

I give up. You are clearly unable to understand and answer a simple question. Copy and pasting a previous unrelated post doesn't change that. I didn't mention pedestrians. Speed doesn't have to be a cause of a crash to be a bad thing (though it often is). It can, however, effect the severity of the crash very easily.

 

[Cobbles]

I give up. You are clearly unable to understand and answer a simple question. Copy and pasting a previous unrelated post doesn't change that. I didn't mention pedestrians. Speed doesn't have to be a cause of a crash to be a bad thing (though it often is). It can, however, effect the severity of the crash very easily.

So what do you suggest?

A return to the days of the man with the red flag?If you take pedestrians out of the equation (what about differential speed limits - cars with rubber bumpers and reactive bonnets - 40MPH, Lorries and buses 10MPH), then for the occupants, cars are safer than they've ever been (apart from trash like the G-wizz but then that doesn't have to be NCAP tested).

 

[Pingu]

Actually having said that I wouldn't mind having an optional speed limiter that I could switch on when in 20/30/40 mph zones with loads of cameras as it's really easy to accidentally slip a few mph over the limit unless watching the speedometer closely, and if you're doing that you're not paying attention to the road.

some cars already have them

mine can be set to sound an alarm when you go over a certain speed but others actually prevent you from exceeding that speed unless you floor the accelerator

 

[T & P]

I give up. You are clearly unable to understand and answer a simple question. Copy and pasting a previous unrelated post doesn't change that. I didn't mention pedestrians. Speed doesn't have to be a cause of a crash to be a bad thing (though it often is). It can, however, effect the severity of the crash very easily.

I do know what you mean, even if Cobbles doesn't. And IMO the answer is 'balance'. We live our lives trying to strike a balance between safety and enjoyment.

It shouldn't be a question of preserving life at all costs. If that was the case we would ban cars altogether (and public transport too, since nothing is completely safe). So we should try to draw the line where we achieve a compromise between convenience, freedom, enjoyment and safety for all.

Where the line should be drawn is of course the heart of the matter. As it happens I think some speeds are too low, some appropriate and some too high.

But I would not accept someone saying "if we were to reduce speeds on motorways to 40mph, imagine how many lives would be saved" any more than I would accept someone saying "if we banned all children from being on the streets imagine how many lives would be saved". Not saying that is what you meant though.

 

[Isambard]

A child who steps into the path of a car doing 20 MPH has a much better chance of that car being able to stop than if the car is doing 30MPH.

A child that is hit by a car doing 20 MPH has a much higher chace of survining with moderate injury than if he car was doing 30 MPH.

 

[bigbry]

Think so. You need more distance between vehicles as speeds increase, which reduces the number of cars on a stretch of road. The higher throughput of vehicles may not compensate for this.

Also if everyone is 'pushing on' and perhaps riding closer than they should whenever someone touches their barkes the person behind presses a little harder on their brakes 'just in case' and eventually the traffic stops somewhere. These are the times on a motorway whre you all come to ahalt for a short period and then get going again to find there was no accident or 'incident' and you wonder what happened.

I have found that the stretch of M25 around heathrow that has the variable limit is very good as long as everyone stays in their lane - only when some plonker decides that the next lane is travelling 2 mph faster & decides to swap lanes and cuts someone up do we have a problem.

 

[Cobbles]

A child who steps into the path of a car doing 20 MPH has a much better chance of that car being able to stop than if the car is doing 30MPH.

A child that is hit by a car doing 20 MPH has a much higher chace of survining with moderate injury than if he car was doing 30 MPH.

Presumably if the child steps into the path of any car then the driver will be able to sue the parents for negligence - no?

 

[Isambard]

If a child steps out into the path of a car they are potentially causing an accident. The lower the cars speed, the greater chance of it being able to stop and avoiding an accident occuring. If an accident does occur then the slower the speed, the much greater chances of avoiding a death or serious injury.

I personally think where I live that the 20 MPh isn't enfocrced stricty enough and I think there should be an expansion of Play Streets.