Safe Speed Forums

I was appalled to read the following on one of your web pages:

"Why allow the speed limit to be exceeded when it is safe to do so?

3.01 Time is saved. The savings are significant. A conservative calculation using 3 minutes additional delay per journey adds up to around 1,500 80 year lifetimes each year in the UK. In order to *possibly* save a handful of whole lives we risk wasting 1500 in dribs and drabs?
3.02 Enables "perfect" driving. Since perfect driving can be characterized as "maximum safe progress", and since I seek to perfect my driving, it pains me to obey speed limits when I know that the optimum safe speed is far in excess of the limit. I want the right to use the skills I am proud of to the full.
3.03 Encourages pride in driving through trust. If you want people to be responsible you have to give them some responsibility first.
3.04 Avoids the frustration caused by being slowed pointlessly to follow mail
3.05 The right to exceed the speed limit could be used to incentivize advanced driver training.
3.06 Avoids the dangerous soporific effects of unnecessarily slow speeds. Higher speeds raise driver alertness.
etc."

What a load of self-serving twaddle! "it pains me to obey speed limits" - jeez! ? pretentious, moi? - "being slowed pointlessly" - "avoids the dangerous soporific effects of ...low speeds" - Huhhh??? Have you listened to yourself??? Total arrogance and absolute tripe.

All this is about you and your God given right to drive as fast as you choose - "when it is safe to do so" is patronising lipservice to a concept of which, on this showing, you have not a glimmer of understanding.

"The right to exceed the speed limit could be used to incentivize advanced driver training" God almighty help us!!! The ravings of the madhouse.

Patience, tolerance, courtesy, respect, dignity, caution, restraint ? totally absent in the above - are the qualities that determine the good driver. This is a charter for mayhem.

Couldn't agree more. My mate calls it 'adolescent egocentrism'. He's probably right.

I moved these two posts because they did not relate to the original subject.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

The web page in question is:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/claims.html

The statements you have quoted are components of an "argument database" suggested for discussion. It's rather out of date and has barely been revised since the earliest days of the web site. It's on a list for revision.

However, the points presented are not so easily dismissed. There are a range of critically important reasons why exceeding the speed limit is vital to road safety.

Have a look at this much more recent Safe Speed page:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/why.html

The bottom line is that I am quite certain that an overemphasis on the speed limit is extremely dangerous.

Far from being a "charter for mayhem" these factors were mostly present when we earned ourselves the safest roads in the world.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Sucessive goverment policies have given us the safest roads in the world, and a hardcore believe we also have the most anti-car government in the world. Seriously, does this mean that anti-car pays off, and if so, does this mean that anti-car is a good thing?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Seriously I don't think that argument goes anywhere. We overtook Sweden in 1979 to have the safest roads in the World (according to the fatality rate indicator). In those days, anti-car government was in its infancy. Clearly our success predates anti-car policies.

I'm certain we have been depending on the earlier culture since then, and we're now fast losing our World lead. In fact we're now the slowest improving country in Europe. See:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pr113.html

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

The trouble is when adult males suffer from 'adolescent egocentrism'. Many of them seem to, judging by TV shows like 'Top Gear', and car racing shows like F1 and what have you. Some boneheads use the roads just to have fun irrespective of risk to others, rather than to get about safely. When criticised, they throw up all manner of chaff to convince serious road users to tolerate their nonsense.

Women, who benefit from cheaper insurance than men because they drive well, don't seem to suffer as much from 'adolescent egocentrism'. I wouldn't be surprised if it is related to excess testosterone conditions.

_________________
I stole this .sig

I certainly see a load of road dangers thrown up by competitive young men. But should we knock "the human condition" or embrace it? If young men were not competitive what would mankind have achieved? Even the DNA would be much worse...

And I think the jury is still out on female drivers being safer. Looks like they do far fewer miles. Lower risk per year, higher risk per mile perhaps?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

But when I removed the log function and refitted a least squares line to the data you referred me to (deaths over distance), using recent (less than 20 year old) data it was clear in the graph that the start of the slow down predates the mass introduction of cameras. I suggest that when a previous event supports your argument you embrace it as evidence, but when a previous event detracts from it, you diminish it’s importance.

_________________
I stole this .sig

I can't imagine what you have been looking at, but that's absolutely wrong.

The fatal accident rate trend was showing accelerating improvement relative to an exponential decay trend line right up until 1993.



You're mistaken again. I pride myself on very high standards of honest analysis. I can put my hand on my heart and promise you that I have never once neglected contrary data.

It is sometimes necessary to assign different importance to different data. I have never done this without rational cause, and I would hope that the rational causes are always explained. For example, see why I mistrust the serious injury statistics:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/serious.html

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

If the "human condition" is to live like oiks, we should knock it into shape.

_________________
I stole this .sig

But only if oiks is a minority characteristic? One assumes that "oikness" is a relative term and can only be applied to minorities.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

basingwerk, I make no applogies for being a competitive male (am I still young at 30?) No competition would mean no Premiership, no Olympics, no Wimbledon. As for your argument about motorsport, have you any idea how much skill Valentino Rossi needs to tame that 200hp+ bike? I don't either, but I bet it's is considerable.

If I wasn't competitive I would not feel the urge to do an advance course. Nor would I have the urge to do a second more difficult one. I would have been satisfied with just passing me test.

Zylophone, I can drive with patence (but can't spell it!), tolerance and all the other things you mentioned while driving faster than a round piece of metal on the end of a stick says I should without hurting or inconveniencing anyone. I have a big insentive to not crash. Nevermind hurting people, crashing is very expensive. If I crash I might not hurt anyone, even myself. But boy, is my wallet going to feel it.

It looks like you are substituting the word 'motivated' for competitive. Surely you (and similar minded people) did the advanced courses because you/they were motivated, competitiveness doesn't really enter into it.

My patch has the "safest" roads in the UK. We have nice twisty roads, and we are prone to bad weather - flash floods, fog - micro-climates -

We do not have many speed cameras - and our policing is done by deploying staff in the correct way - giving value for money .....and nicking speeders and giving them NIPS on the spot

Speed cams? Who needs 'em when you have a nice cuddly copper. with an acid line of ticking offs!

Yeah - before you start - I do like doughnuts .....

I agree that the web page quoted does not exactly give the most convincing reasons against speed limits.

Personally, I would not have any problem with speed limits or cameras if the limits were all set appropriately. Unfortunately, that is not the case these days, as local authorities randomly reduce speed limits in the name of "safety".

Having to drive along a wide, straight dual carriageway at 40 mph when you can see full well that it is safe to do 70 (and in many cases was a 70 limit until 2 weeks ago when the council decided to "improve safety") is very frustrating, and unfortunately frustration leads to people doing stupid things, getting distracted and ultimately causing an accident.