UK Speed Limits
- Thread starter Voley
- Start date
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
I reckon quality of life is a perfectly valid reason for reduced speed limits.
My own street is reasonably used to avoid a long detour so wouldn't suit being a home zone, but 20mph is the absolute maximum reasonable speed.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
not really sure you're right to generalise like that seeing as 75% of people have said they should be relaxed in some cases and tightened in others.
I spent a fair amount of time in the late 90s campaigning for pedestrianised city centres, and safer residential streets, and will always slow down in residential areas / if I see a school in daytime hours etc. I just want some laws that actually make sense.
obanite
Kroketten
Good point re: other countries.
I've noticed that the further north you go in europe, in general, the slower the limits get. In France on the autoroute it's 130kmh (I stuck to 85mph) in clear weather and 110 in poor weather, which seemed to work great. In Norway though it's 90kmh (55mph) on the motorway.
So, I'd say that our speed limits are about right, given the kind of weather we get - very changeable, heavy rain any time of year, strong winds, fog and icey roads not that uncommon in most parts of the country.
I'd agree with 80mph on the motorway in good weather I think, but not A-roads or dual carriageways.
But that 75% are saying 'yeah, tighten it up to 20mph for 100 yards either side of a primary school, during school hours, every other month with a z in it', whereas Germany actually has loads and loads of 'home zone's, which are basically any residential road, side street or cul-de-sac, and are 5 or 10kph.
Voley
🐭
And a compulsory skidpan test would stop this happening? I doubt it'd make much difference at all.
For me, this sums up the problem.
Anywhere you put a speed limit, there will be circumstances and occasions on which it's going to be wrong.
It'd be nice to think that, rather than thinking "oh, the limit's 30 here" and driving at 30, more drivers would be thinking "ooerr, school, tons of kids around, I am going to be ready to stop the minute I see a Small Child run out from behind a parked car".
Same goes on motorways: I've driven down nearly-empty roads loads of times when 80 - perhaps even more - would have been a safe speed, and the same road in heavier traffic where even going at 60 would be pushing it...not that it stopped anyone from trying.
I don't know what the answer is, in terms of the actual limits, but it does seem to me that a more discretionary approach - both sides of the limit - would be sensible. What we really need is a cultural change that gets people thinking less about the maximum speed they're allowed to do, and more about what speed is safe to do at any given time.
Indeed - the weather in Germany is presumably always 20C, dry with clear visibility, hence their ability to allow unlimited speed sections on their autobahns.
If we got back to highway policing as opposed to revenue collection via robotics then we might be able to manage the roads better (e.g. the limit is a maximum given the correct conditions - 70 in the fog is clearly an offence, unfortunately revenuecams can't cater for such variables).
It'd never get passed through government, but banning vehicles that do more than 70mph, excepting emergency service vehicles? Not necessarily something I back, I'd need to read more studies on it, but I still present it as an idea.
Really, I think "banning" is going about dealing with the issue in completely the wrong way.
The sooner we move off this path that says the only way to change human behaviour is to legislate it, the better, I think. The proliferation of speed cameras has done nothing to improve the rate at which we're reducing KSIs on the roads, any more than the proliferation of ever-more-intrusive and dumbed-down signage has. Arguably, by deskilling drivers in the way these approaches do, we're making people MORE likely to have accidents in the (many) situations where we can't give them roadsigns with subtitles for the hard-of-understanding to tell them exactly what to do. And that's assuming that people do what they're told to, anyway, or that what they're being told to do is either appropriate, safe, or possible.
snadge
metal alchemist
more 20's in built up areas and schools, less speed bumps and 100mph on motorways with lane discipline being enforced through fines.
Skidpans for the test, I've lost count of the amount of times I have seen a car skid in bad weather with the driver doing ALL the wrong things and ending up in a hedge.
BTW i have hit 180mph+ on deserted Autobahns in my car, great.
Skidpans for the test, I've lost count of the amount of times I have seen a car skid in bad weather with the driver doing ALL the wrong things and ending up in a hedge.
BTW i have hit 180mph+ on deserted Autobahns in my car, great.
roryer
道可道非常道，名可名非常名
Interesting question and great timing what with the DfT consultation on this issue being out right now.
In case it hasn't already been mentioned. The relationship between speed and collisions is well understood.
TRL Report LR421 found that in urban areas a 1mph reduction in average speed reduced collisions by around 5%. This relationship has been supported by numerous other trials, including an analysis of 78 20mph zones in London, where a 9mph reduction in average speed led to a 46% reduction in all casualties.
As regards enforcement, speed humps and other traffic calming design interventions are the most effective measure in residential areas, while on main roads, camera enforcement while not always popular with the public, has made a huge contribution to reducing collisions. For London it is estimated that the 500 cameras save over 350 killed and seriously injured casualties a year (every year).
The introduction of time-over-distance cameras should be increased, as an important road safety initiative. These have the ability to reduce speeds along lengths of road, rather than at points like existing ‘Gatso’ cameras. They have proven very effective in urban motorway environments and the technology can be transferred to the more dangerous main roads in urban areas.
Penalties for really excessive speeding are also not large enough. Excessive speeding is a major cause of collisions that lead to fatal and serious injury and should be seen as unacceptable by society. This can be done by changing social norms through education and publicity, including working closer with the press, and having a higher threat of prosecution.
Banding needs to be considered for those speeding at greater than a particular level and for a number of offenders there needs to be an automatic ban rather than an option of one. These bands need to be published and adhered too within the penalty process.
In my opinion motorway speeds should also be reduced for environmental reasons. I believe 60mph limit enforced at speeds over 70mph would have a significant benefit. Firstly lower average speeds would save significantly on CO2 emissions, and also have the secondary benefit of encouraging many drivers to swap to trains, or choose either to replace a longer trip with sourcing the service locally, or communicate through video conferencing etc.
In summary, speed limits are in general too high, in resdiential areas should have a blanket 20mph limit. Main arterial roads in urban areas should be 30mph and motorways up to 60mph.
In case it hasn't already been mentioned. The relationship between speed and collisions is well understood.
TRL Report LR421 found that in urban areas a 1mph reduction in average speed reduced collisions by around 5%. This relationship has been supported by numerous other trials, including an analysis of 78 20mph zones in London, where a 9mph reduction in average speed led to a 46% reduction in all casualties.
As regards enforcement, speed humps and other traffic calming design interventions are the most effective measure in residential areas, while on main roads, camera enforcement while not always popular with the public, has made a huge contribution to reducing collisions. For London it is estimated that the 500 cameras save over 350 killed and seriously injured casualties a year (every year).
The introduction of time-over-distance cameras should be increased, as an important road safety initiative. These have the ability to reduce speeds along lengths of road, rather than at points like existing ‘Gatso’ cameras. They have proven very effective in urban motorway environments and the technology can be transferred to the more dangerous main roads in urban areas.
Penalties for really excessive speeding are also not large enough. Excessive speeding is a major cause of collisions that lead to fatal and serious injury and should be seen as unacceptable by society. This can be done by changing social norms through education and publicity, including working closer with the press, and having a higher threat of prosecution.
Banding needs to be considered for those speeding at greater than a particular level and for a number of offenders there needs to be an automatic ban rather than an option of one. These bands need to be published and adhered too within the penalty process.
In my opinion motorway speeds should also be reduced for environmental reasons. I believe 60mph limit enforced at speeds over 70mph would have a significant benefit. Firstly lower average speeds would save significantly on CO2 emissions, and also have the secondary benefit of encouraging many drivers to swap to trains, or choose either to replace a longer trip with sourcing the service locally, or communicate through video conferencing etc.
In summary, speed limits are in general too high, in resdiential areas should have a blanket 20mph limit. Main arterial roads in urban areas should be 30mph and motorways up to 60mph.
snadge
metal alchemist
The most biased loaded reasoning I have read on the subject, mainly without supporting evidence, it's the old mantra which has been proved wrong time and time again.
Why don't you just come out with it, you want cars OFF the roads.
Bet you live in a city......
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Oh do fuck off.
Pingu
Credo
with decent public transport
though having said this i d think he says this stuff just to get a rise sometimes and secretly wants a big 4x4 to get round in.
Strange: that's exactly what I thought.
It just irritates me to see cant and agenda-driven selectively-quoted nonsense being peddled as fact.
To be fair to roryer, he makes that pretty abundantly clear most of the time - it's certainly not a hidden agenda!
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
If environmental groups are to be believed, adding extra lanes to motorways such as the M25 only succeeds in attracting extra traffic, and soon it's back to the same jam levels as before.
Obviously making a dual carriageway where a single lane road was will increase speed, if only because one doesn't have to be stuck behind a caravan for miles.
Obviously making a dual carriageway where a single lane road was will increase speed, if only because one doesn't have to be stuck behind a caravan for miles.
Strange: that's exactly what I thought.
It just irritates me to see cant and agenda-driven selectively-quoted nonsense being peddled as fact.
Me too, which is why I originally responded with something rather ruder than the edited version!
Having had a couple of pints, I'm now in a less diplomatic frame of mind. It's pure twaddle, driven entirely by prejudice and formed without any reference to the world outside the middle-class London bubble so many of these hardline anti-car fanatics live in. It really isn't worth giving the time of day to - simple as that.
And as for the 'Transition Towns' movement roryer is so keen on, a more hypocritical load of cant I've yet to stumble across. Its leader lives in Totnes, which is very hot on branding itself as a Transition Town. I went there last autumn. it's lovely - provided you're loaded, that is, and you don't mind dodging the Porsches and Land Rovers on its picturesque high street. Me, I've no great sympathy for the TT bunch, but I do think narrow streets in historic towns are best without cars. And yet, this lot seem to be so busy lecturing to people elsewhere that they can't sort their own backyard out.
Doubtless some smart-arse will come back and accuse me of being some Clarkson clone on the strength of the above. Don't bother. I've argued time and again on here that cars are a pretty poor means of transport in cities and that trains are better at moving people and freight fast over long distances. But - and it's a big but - I've no sympathy for the kind of simplistic drivel peddled by the hardline anti-car ranters. They and the Jeremy Clarksons of this world are as bad as, and deserve, one another.
Yes. It's a very specific example of "I don't like that, so you shouldn't have it either" that we see in all kinds of areas, from what's on TV to drug laws. And what's rather distasteful about it is that it's often those with the greatest choice in the first place who are seeking to narrow the options for everyone else.
I don't know if roryer lives in a town well-served by public transport. I know I don't. I share a lot of his views on transport (if not their extremity), but until his Utopian paradise comes to fruition, I need to be able to drive a car, relatively affordably, moderately quickly, and without being trammelled by endless restrictions and fingerpointing for my evil ways.
Where, perhaps, roryer and the real world diverge is in the recognition that, for most people, the "choice" to drive is one informed by all kinds of factors. I "choose" to drive: today, I shall be in the county town to see a client at 1000, and then have to get 15 miles up the road to a school to work the rest of the day there. Then I have another call to make on the 25 mile journey home. I could just do it by bus...provided I was prepared to allow 90 minutes for the first leg, and around the same to get to the school. I could walk the 3 miles to my last call, but then I have a problem - I'm 22 miles away from home, but 12 miles from the nearest bus service that'll get me there. IF there's a bus that late in the evening (there may well not be), I'd arrive home by about 2200.
My "choice", like that of so many others, is no choice at all. People like roryer forget this, and in the process do serious harm to the important message that we do need to find ways of getting out of our cars and using more appropriate means of transport. Waving big sticks at people isn't the way to do that.
ETA: but I realise that this is taking the thread a bit off-topic...
roryer
道可道非常道，名可名非常名
What old mantra? The relationship between speed and road casulaties? Did you actually read the contents of the post?
The evidence that was cited is from the part government funded (it now has a private consultancy arm), Transport Research Laboratory.
If you want more references, a large proportion of collisions have ‘excess speed’ identified as a causation factor in the Police STATS19 data.
Finally, as to objectivity on this issue, since I lifted almost all of my posting from the transport Technical Advisors Group's, report as part of the government consulation on speeding, (TAG represents the technical practicioners at local authorities), which is free from pro-car or anti-car sentiment. (It should be noted however that the report centred on reducing urban road casulaties, particlualrily pedestrian and cyclist road safety, and there was nothing about motorways, this was my own addition, but I think the environmental benefits of reducing speed on motorways is well documented.)
It seems however, that you are one of drivers who believe you should be free to drive at any speed on the public road, free of consequences, regardless of any risk to the lives of other road users. The TAG report actually identifies this attitude as one of the barriers to effective speed enforcement.
4.1 For generations, drivers have had the view that it is their divine right to drive on the roads and any attempt at limiting their freedoms has been strongly resisted. This Mr Toad attitude needs to be changed. Driving has to be seen as in terms of a social activity, taking into account other road users and society in general.
A follow up to this point that annoys me which is related to this 'divine right' problem is the danger to cyclists.
4.8 With the move towards sustainability, cycling is being encouraged in many urban areas. In London this has led to a worrying increase in the number of cyclists seriously injured. Many of the cycling facilities, particularly advanced stop-lines, are abused by vehicles, putting cyclists in unnecessary danger.
I think drivers like you need to accept that it is a priviage, not a right, to drive, and we must encourage it to be seen as socially unacceptable to drive at speed, particulary in urban areas.
Not one single person on this thread has argued that. Quit erecting silly straw men to take pot-shots at. Why are you doing it anyway? Are you being wilfully dishonest, or are you just incapable of seeing things in other than black-and-white, pro-car/anti-car, terms?
snadge
metal alchemist
once again you cite disinformation, speed does not cause accidents per se, what causes accidents are bad drivers, enforced by the test in place, bad lane discipline, tailgating and lack of awareness in general, speed amplifies all these bad practises.
The test should be a test of driving not the blind adherence to a rule laden way of driving as it does now, skidpans and adverse weather driving should be included as should motorway driving with emphasis on lane discipline and awareness.
Your CO2 argument is full of shite to boot, putting guilt onto individuals about emissions is unproductive to say the least, the onus should be on the collective first, fucking flying for a start, why isn't aviation fuel taxed? no tax the poor cunt that lives in the country with NO public transport and let big business take advantage of all the individual savings, it is a fucking huge con and you anti car idiots can't see it....
It makes me want to get a gas guzzling 4*4 but I like going round corners too much.
And here lies the problem.
Of course speed is likely to be a causation factor in accidents, for all kinds of reasons. But it's a gross oversimplification to suggest that, simply because speed is involved, the answer is automatically to insist that speeds are reduced.
Why? Firstly, because all of life is a compromise between risk and benefit. Our society functions partly because it is possible for people to travel from A to B at speeds which allow things to get done. We don't let people hare around at unrestricted speeds, because the increase in risk they pose to themselves and others is out of all proportion to the benefits that the (putative) reductions in journey times achieve.
Secondly, because any law requires a certain amount of consensus to be enforceable. Most people tend to incorporate a certain sense of "rightness" into their decisions as to whether (or to what degree) to obey the law. In the case of speeding, that means that we generally drive at a speed that feels safe - most of us don't need to be told what to do in order to keep ourselves safe. It so happens that the speed limits applicable around the place are broadly in line with what the majority will perceive as a safe and practicable speed at which to travel. If you increase the disparity between the mean perceived safe speeds and the limits actually in force, two things happen: first, people will generally tend to continue driving - as they did before - at a speed they consider safe and practicable; and secondly, the sense that most of us have, most of the time, that the speed limits in force are reasonable will diminish. Either way, you'll end up having to enforce those limits far more...and there quickly comes a point where the price of enforcement is out of proportion to the benefits.
I think the point is not that the figures are necessarily wrong, but that you use them to draw conclusions which are clearly not objective.
Yawn. I haven't seen ANYONE on this thread suggest that drivers should be "free to drive at any speed on the public road". That's just the usual tired old straw man that gets trotted out every time that someone suggests any kind of scepticism about road traffic laws.
And the TAG is right, to an extent, for the reasons I described a bit further back in this post: if people can't see the sense in a law, then it will become a lot harder to make them obey it. It's called "pragmatism", and it's a characteristic that doesn't appear very much in your views on road safety.
This is true, but it's also worth pointing out that the number of roads deaths is now half what it was forty years ago, despite a huge increase in the number and performance of vehicles on the road, denser traffic and higher speeds. And the rate of decrease in road deaths has actually slowed down in the last ten years or so, despite the ever-increasing emphasis on speed limits and their enforcement on the part of government and police.
Moreover, as we discussed further up the thread, Germany's derestricted autobahns do not create the horrific accident rates that in theory they should if the 'speed kills' slogan were always true. It might also be worth pointing out that such figures as exist for deaths on the roads in Britain from the nineteenth century, well before the private car became common, are actually quite startling. Two hundred people were killed in traffic accidents London in 1868, for instance. Cars do bring risks, but I sometimes get the impression that some people think the roads were a peaceful idyll before cars arrived on the scene: the reality was very different.
Speed can kill when it's used inappropriately, and it can exacerbate accidents where it isn't a primary cause. But to draw from that the conclusion that cars need to be slowed down in all circumstances and at all costs is just nonsense.
Well, I think that, given a certain average level of driver competence, road design, technical capacities of vehicles, speed DOES cause accidents. To take a simple example, the response time of a driver is fairly constant regardless of the speed he's doing, so someone travelling at 80mph is going to travel twice as far as someone doing 40 between seeing a hazard and taking action.
Not that that is, in itself, any justification for blanket reductions in speed limits. And where roryer and I differ sharply is that I think there are many other, more broad-based approaches that can be taken to address the problem apart from merely cutting speed limits.
The other side of that argument is that tyre and braking performance in cars is significantly better now than it was when many of the decisions about speed limits were taken - even the most basic modern car now has good radial tyres and servo-assisted brakes, which were both things regarded as luxury items on cars of 30-40 years ago. Design improvements have led to far better visibility - even things like windscreen wipers work far better now than they ever used to.
What roryer seems to be exercised about most of all, though, is driver attitude. That might manifest itself in, among other ways, higher driving speeds, but tackling that behavioural issue by cutting speed limits is confusing the symptom with the problem. I'd far rather see effort put into tackling the core behaviours - things like, as you have pointed out, tailgating, "road rage", and aggressive driving in general - because I think that they offer the best potential to raise driving standards, and thereby safety. I think it's also quite likely, just from my own observations of my own driving and that of others, that addressing those things would probably have the incidental effect of reducing the amount of excessive speeding that goes on...even if it's only because we ultimately end up taking the "bad attitude" drivers off the road.
There are quite a few Mr Toads out there, it's true. And they will attract disproportionate attention. But most of us aren't Mr Toads, even if we're not (yet) as good drivers as we could be. And I, for one, get pretty fucked off with being expected, by people like roryer with their gross oversimplifications, to pay the price for the behaviour of the minority.
Oh I know the 'Predict-and-Provide' theorem is completely flawed. I was thinking more about adding a fourth lane to a motorway. Do a higher proportion of its users now exceed 70mph?
Similar threads
