Safe Speed Forums

I slow down for hazards.
Speed limits do not stop drivers being able to do this, nor do they require you to know your exact speed at all times, just as long as it isn't higher (+ 10% + 2) than the number on the sign.
Can anyone either confirm or refute this permitted margin?

I'm pleased that you are able to judge a safespeed without reference to a speedo, are you able to do this in a car also?

The 10% + 2mph is ACPO guidline only, in theory you could be done for any transgression.

_________________
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair

so you're agreeing that a safe, but not legal, speed could quite possibly be higher than the magic number?

Correct. But society demands that an upper limit is in place for reasons of safety and consideration for others. Of course we all vary our speeds constantly either on a bike or in a motor vehicle. The limit is just that. Just live with it.

In terms of real world risk the argument is entirely valid, it's just that some people just don't want to hear it.

Don't get me wrong; I used to be an avid cyclist. I bet I've covered more miles by bike than many on C+ (I still do a little bit today but no-where near as much as previous - I used to be a phenomenal hill climber) so please don't read any "them and us" connotations in my post.

If only that was what we actually have!

"just live with it" is not acceptable for an enlightened society.
I will grant that drivers should be keeping their speed down to enable other road users (not just drivers) to form reliable judgements of a situation (a subtlety some drivers miss – why?!?), but what we have has gone beyond this and is getting still worse.

And as I said previously: time dependent variable limits (Germany) are not too difficult to abide by.

As a newbie on here I drifted into this thread as cycling interests me. I have a road bike and use it to keep my weight in order. But mostly I drive considerable distances each year.

I have just been over to the Cycling Plus forum to read what all the fuss is about. I note that one of the issues being discussed is the 'safe speed' for the conditions. For many road users, this is the posted speed limit and I support the comments that the speed limit is not always the safe speed for the conditions. However, it is reported in Cycling Plus that the SS view is that the safe speed can be ANY speed and that posted speed limits should not apply at all. In other words a laissez faire approach. Drivers should be allowed to make their own minds up as to what speed to drive. I query this here, as it does not appear to ring true with what I have read in here.

Enlightened society calls for more cameras and lower speeds on a regular basis. I'm all in favour of a raise in motorway limits to 80 - in line with the ABD piece that Malcolm Heymer wrote. But then I also want to see more 's as per the CTC and others.



Eh? So correct me if I'm wrong - you think that drivers should reduce speeds so that OTHER road users can BETTER JUDGE the situation? Can you think of any other reasons why drivers should reduce speeds?



Having lived in Germany for 3 years I can agree. It makes a lot of sense to reduce the limit when the surface is wet.

We wuldn't be here if I didn't believe that thousands have died because of it.

So 'live with it' takes on a really sickly hue.

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

OK, I’ll correct you
I didn’t say drivers should slow down, I did say drivers must limit their speed enable other road users (not just drivers) to form reliable judgements of a situation. 30 has been a good and reasonable yardstick for where pedestrians can be expected to cross the road without the use of any street furniture, but this is being applied all over. Have you used the DCs though Southampton recently?


Yes, they also completely derestricted other parts in good conditions or when less traffic is likely.

Deaths caused by cyclists fall into the freak accident catagory, more people are killed by the type of battery used in smoke detectors. Unless WVM is actually bringing people back to life he's a bigger menace than the cyclist.

This is not directed at you FW: some of the C+ community see the situation as being so black and white: they claim that “you say this, but then you say this – you can’t have both” when clearly there can be an element of overlap.

Drivers are allowed to make up their own minds, but increasingly this skill is being taken away from them (low speed limits coupled with strict enforcement). I don’t believe that any SS regular has claimed that any speed IS a safe speed. The 85 percentile risk curve supports this.

However, it can be argued that speed limits are not required at all (like some roads in Germany), especially if the ‘coverall’ charge of dangerous driving can be applied.

Recently, the A6144(M) was declassified as a motorway (single carriageway 70mph), and reduced not to 60mph, but 50mph.

The limit was set at 50mph because it was close to the 'average speed' of the road. The average speed was such because HGVs used it, and many people presumed it was a 40mph road since the road it connects to is.

Therefore, a road which was designed for traffic (including HGVs) moving at 70mph, now has a speed limit of 50mph.

There have been no serious accidents on this road to warrant such a reduction. I remember only 1 in the 5 years I've lived here.

In the same week the limit dropped from 70mph to 50mph, for the first time ever there were speed camera vans patrolling the road.

There's no magic number and no totally safe speed, it's just that 30 is safer than 45, or 60. The allowance of 10% + 2 recognises that you might go over by this much now and then.

“A cyclist going flat out does not have the same capacity to injure or kill that a car does”

Your above sentence clearly refers to the danger from a single unit of each, it does not account for overall exposure. The sentence is technically correct but meaningless as it is clear that the overall risk (generally accepted as ‘probability x severity’) from a single unit of the former is greater than one from the latter – probability is the key!

By your definition, walking down the stairs is a bigger menace than WVM and cyclists summed together (the former claiming 1500 lives in the UK per annum).

Getting to the point: if there were as many cyclists as vehicles, using today’s trends as a reference, cyclists would require the most regulation of all. Don’t think I’m kidding - this has already been discussed by ministers (as highlighted earlier in this thread).

ALL road deaths are 'freak accidents'...

We have about 30 million near misses each year
We have about 3 million damage onlys each year
... about 200,000 injury crashes
....about 25,000 serious injury crashes
... about 3,000 fatal crashes

So the chance of a crash being fatal is about 1 in 1,000.

Also note the 'log' severity scale. You can't get that out of any 'physics model'. Believe me, I've tried.

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

And driver selected speeds, suitable for the hazard environment in the real world, are thousands of times safer still.

'Appropriate speed' is inherently safe, because any speed that causes a danger is not appropriate. What we need (amongst other things) is MORE appropriate speeds - but that means finding strategies that improve driver quality. Fortunately we have some.

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

I know you think you've explained this, but it's still not making sense to me, how can speed limits have been responsible for thousands of deaths?
Would these people still be alive if speed limits hadn't been invented?

You don't need to watch traffic for very long to realise that most drivers can not be relied on to select an appropriate speed. They just like going fast.

Of course you wuld. Crocodile tears. I can remember seeing the smug delight in your face when you presented to the ABD in Gaydon. You implied that you had found some holy grail that would be the end of speed cameras, and perhaps limits.

I've left the ABD too, as you know. It's libertairianism gone mad. ABD and SS both seeking to use mind numbingly boring stats as a tool to grant them the liberty to drive wherever, whenever, and at whatever speed they see fit - regardless of any wider damage to society. I've no idea why I'm even over here posting again. Please do me a favour and and ban me.

And as for 'sickly hue'......... If you want sick, there was once a guy who suggested that people provide the name of someone recently deceased as being the driver of their car should they ever receive a NIP.

See y'all. Ich bin weg.