Safe Speed Forums

I think it is reasonably self-evident that most people do drive at a reasonably safe speed most of the time. If that was not the case, we would be seeing a lot more excess speed related crashes than we actually do.

Somewhat to the contrary, I suspect it is also true (I had this discussion with Paul on several occasions) that if an 'advanced' driver was sitting next to and coaching an 'average' driver, there would probably be frequent occasions on which he might say "a bit too fast there". However, I think that this reflects the advanced driver's enhanced hazard awareness and desire for smoothness. Put another way, I think advanced drivers will set a slightly larger safety margin because they will seek to avoid hard, unplanned braking at all times whereas the average driver may see an occasional emergency stop as part of the driving experience.

What I find worrying is that there are (probably) more and more people who feel they need the guidance of speed limits to determine a safe speed rather than making their own judgements (obviously because if they need speed limits to guide them that increases the "I'm not exceeding the speed limit therefore I'm safe" risk/syndrome). If that is the case, it is a sign of a deterioration in driver quality; and the single glaringly obvious fact in the road safety debate is that it is driver quality, way above everything else, that determines crash risk.

But are crashes the only byproduct/result of drivers choosing too high a speed at which to travel?
What about the effect of driving at inappropriate speeds through someone else's 'patch', there is plenty of evidence that people openly hate and campaign against this. There are few crashes but other stake holders are required to modify their behaviour to maintain their own safety thereby giving the illusion that the driver's behaviour is safe.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Never mind any of this 'almost breaking the law' drivel - if I drive at 30mph on a road with a 30mph limit I am NEVER breaking the law

Well thats okay then, safety be damned! Smart cookie you, eh!

The adverts - if SS (interesting initials) has no say in the adverts, why is there a line saying something like 'follow these links to support SS'? simple reason - SS supports methods of getting away with speeding. It's the same with the lawyer advert, claimign to get people off speeding charges by 'technicalities' i.e. these people HAVE broken the law, the lawyers are just trying to find some loop-hole - another case of directly supporting speeding motorists.
Chief Constable of North Wales - again I will ask - what sane person could hate someone who wants to make the roads in North Wales safer?
speed cameras - only the morons in society hate safety equipment. The ONLY reason revenue is raised to be spent on further road safety projects, is because of those peopel who break the very well signed speed limits. Don't have hate campaigns against cameras - have hate campaigns against those idiots who keep speeding and therefore prove that cameras are needed.
Motorists vs Burglars - A speeding motorist runs the risk of terrorising, injuring or killing innocent people - they know that when they decide to break the law.
Road safety partnerships - it's not them who think they are above the law - it's the brain-dead motorists who think they have the right to ignore any motoring law they don't like

I know that you will disagree with everything I have written, but, then again, it's not easy to convince people who hate the law to stick to it.

Theres no such thing as a 'loophole'.

there is simply the law.

You are either in accordance with it or not.

What is the profile of these 'speeders'? In what way do people have to modify their behaviour to maintain their own safety? Is it a response to the speed of traffic or volume of traffic?

Take a rural A road village high street, where the 85% ile speed (without intervention) is (say) 40mph. Would a reduction in speed limit to 30mph improve quality of life for pedestrians or make thiings worse?

STOP PRESS!

I know who gatsos forever is? Maurice Gatsonides, inventor of the speed camera.

Well, no one thinks their own baby is ugly do they?


How much money have you made off them Maurice?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

The profile of those speeders is just about every Tom, Dick and Harry. People have to modify their behaviour by stopping their otherwise capable kids from cycling along the road to go to the shop, or they avoid walking along the pavement where it narrows. The problem is caused by the speed, it creates more noise, vibration and windrush than if drivers were obeying the limit.

As for your rural 'A' road, I was thinking more of one which already has a 30 mph speed limit but which is widely ignored and drivers travel through at 40 mph (or more). Would enforcement of the extant limit improve the quality of life for the residents; I think it might.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

No, that's not right.
30mph is the MAXIMUM you can LEGALLY drive on a road so signed. The LEGAL speed you SHOULD be driving at is the speed appropriate for the conditions. In MANY cases you could be driving at 30mph in a 30 limit and be driving illegally.

Perhaps it's just where I live. Most of the time, in 30 limits I drive in, I see most drivers more or less observing the limit - perhaps a bit above but not so much that I could agree it really makes a difference. Yes there are a few who are driving substantially faster and the occasional antisocial 'yoof' in a Nova with windows open and music blaring, but they're a relatively small minority.

WRT "Would enforcement of the extant limit improve the quality of life for the residents; I think it might"- is there really a noticeable difference in noise, vibration and windrush between 30 and 40 (on normal, dry road surface)?

In the village where my parents-in-law used to live in Lincolnshire the 30mph limit was widely ignored. I know this because, when entering or driving through the village I would be regularly caught up, and a quick time/distance check roughly established that speeds of up to 50 mph were not uncommon.
Walking a dog along the path before crossing to get to the track that led up to the woods it was necessary to find a midpoint on a straight to try and cross the road. It was patently obvious that many cars were creating more noise and presenting greater difficulty to a safe crossing if they emerged from around a corner at the point one decided to start the cross, than others.
A claim (not that you are making it) that, in such circumstances, the limit is obviously too low is IMHO absurd and not a little selfish and arrogant.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

I can see trying to cross a road with 50 mph traffic could be difficult. Perhaps the road 'presents' in the wrong way. What is the median speed (don't suppose you know but is it a 'few', 'some' or 'most' vehicles that are so substantially speeding? I wonder if SIDS would help in these situations?

I can see the crossing difficulty presented by faster traffic where a bend prevents clear visibility in both directions but where visibility is good, slowing traffic down can make things harder for pedestrians, not easier (traffic bunches up so there are fewer 'crossing' gaps).

If the limit is appropriate to the road environment and there is a significant proportion of vehicles substantially exceeding it there are various engineering measures that can be taken to reduce traffic speeds such as prominent gateways, central islands and carriageway narrowing.


Central islands can also make crossing the road easier. But, contrary to what you might think, assuming the volume of traffic remains the same, reducing its speed makes no difference whatsoever to the time gaps between vehicles and indeed, as vehicles' dwell time is increased, may give the impression that the road has become busier.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I think the entrance 'gateway' thing would probably do some good here as the road just arrives in the village from the surrounding countryside with just a speed limit sign and the village name.

The gap between the vehicles thing isn't applicable unless the traffic flow is totally regular, out in the country it seldom is. A computer model may show that in theory the gap is the same, but in the real world the only important factor is the judgement that someone standing at the side of the road waiting to cross has to make on the closing speed of an approaching vehicle. And of course vehicles coming from opposite directions also add to the complication.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Well, you could be because its illegal to drive at an inappropriate speed regardless of what the limit is.

Sorry, did you say LALALALALAI'MNOTLISTENINGLALALALA again?

_________________
Smokebelching,CO2 making,child murdering planet raping,granny mugging,politically incorrect globally warming (or is it climate changing now it's getting colder?)thug.
That's what the government want you to believe of me. If they get back in I'm emigrating.

My bold.

Of course I disagree with you. You assume we live in a world where everything is either a 1 or a 0. It's not. Their are shades of grey-and those are COMMON SENSE. Might be nice if you showed some and got your head out of your USB socket.

_________________
Smokebelching,CO2 making,child murdering planet raping,granny mugging,politically incorrect globally warming (or is it climate changing now it's getting colder?)thug.
That's what the government want you to believe of me. If they get back in I'm emigrating.

I live in just such a village with a single cariageway NSL through the middle of it. Would my quality of life be improved by reducing the speed limit along there?

Quite probably!

...at least until I wanted to DRIVE along it!

I accept the increased noise & windrush because on balance, I can see that being able to make decent progress along that stretch of road also had advantages for me.

Similarly, I don't much like cycling along a few hundred yards of it before I can cross on to the quieter lanes - especially with the kids in the bike trailer.

But on the other hand, I wouldn't want to reduce the speed limit to the point where I DID feel safe.

Oh, ha ha ha. Aren't you a wag?
No, it just means that these people have paid SafeSpeed to advertise their products - just as they would pay a newspaper or magazine.



I wouldn't hate anyone who really wanted to do that - but Brunstrom has a fixation with only one method, and a flawed one at that. If he got a few more trafpol on the roads of North Wales, instead of relying on automatic revenue-generation, he might gain a modicum of respect. But then, looking at all his other deeply weird antics, one really has to wonder how such a man came to be in such a responsible position.......


But they are demonstrably NOT "safety equipment"



So all the people who work for these "Safety Partnerships" do so for nothing, simply because they love the job? Take the blinkers off, for goodness' sake!



So, if I'm doing 32mph in a 30 mph limit on an empty road at 2 am(SPEEDING!!!) I'm worse than someone who breaks into someone's house, steals their property and possibly trashes the place,? Have you ever been burgled? I suspect not, otherwise you would not post such garbage as this.



And where, on this forum, has anyone said such a thing? Get real, boy.



Not difficult, when everything you write is impossible to agree with - but that's the idea, isn't it?



So, we "hate the law", do we? All of it? Really, you don't do yourself any favours with these wild generalisations.

_________________
Save a cow - eat a vegetarian