Safe Speed Forums

I'm really amaazed at the results of the Guardian poll. Despite the fact that Guardian readers are usually Anti Car and the poll itself is so badly worded to insinuate that anyone voting for the second option is a total nutcase (by Guardian readers standards)....there is STILL a slight majority in favour of the second option.....if Guardian readers can't accept the first option then THERE is a chance of sanity in the country....

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Nice to see that Brake's spokesperson had so many useful, constructive comments to make.....NOT!

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Anyone listened again to yesterday's Vine prog 1pm-1.30 pm - ish

Blimey. Wildy told me about it when I went to visit her. (Errr.. she's been in hospital for past couple of days ) She went on the hunt for a quiet place to phone the prog .. but then lost the signal when "holding on" :bangehead:

Anyway .. prog had a woman from Northants on the prog who claimed to "drive below the speed limit at all times." This led to a number of callers phoning it to accuse her of "causing accidents" with one suggesting her licence be removed with immediate effect. The lady spluttered out "Cheeky buggers" on air and went on to explain that she does not do 30 mph in a 50 mph .. but would be 40-45 mph.

She then explained why and it was this comment which made me sit up and think "maybe she's an OK old gal"



:scratchchchin:

However, she then claimed folk "speeded up and down her cul-de sac".

Well .. thaat narrows it down to her neighbours then .. and I think those who scream the loudest NIMBY are usually the most inconsiderate of all


Some of the calls suggested the lady was "inconsiderate and dangerous for not driving at or on the speed limit". I would say that some roads should require a minimum speed .. in free flow circumstances . I have to admit that I have no real issues with a driver who trundles along at a 5 mph margin below lolly in real terms. Nor has my wife. Nor our three driver kids. I have an issue if the driver drives significantly below the speed limit .. and at a speed which an average and occasional cyclist can exceed effortlessly though. as this would be inconsiderate to the point of dangerous to others.

There were numerous calls to the show.. which had Vine in stitches .. including one daft muppet from a village with a 30 mph zone. She claimed the cars were "zooming through above this" .. so she



Now that's slower than a cyclist. And inconsiderate.

By and large .. I got the impression that most out there are against the idea of reducing the speed limits to this extent.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

We have a village near us where the residents have been "whinging" for years about traffic speeding through their village.
Police did a speed check and found the average to be 26.7MPH....these people have no idea of what a speed is they "assume" everyone is "speeding".

I travelled one of our main A roads the other sunday evening to find a queue going at 30 MPH for miles and miles...behind an open top MG sports car driven by a guy about 45.....why didn't he just pull over and "pose" by the side of the road????

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

I have also seen it mentioned that the blanket reduction of speed limits will accompany other measures such as improved standards in driving tests and better engineering. Would it be unfair to suggest that the anti-rationale campaigners will use improvements brought about by these things to justify the reduction of limits?

_________________
David

I've just been out to get a sandwich and there is a council gang on the road outside the factory changing all the speed limit signs from 40mph to 30mph.

Just a few years ago it was NSL. There has been no significant development in the area. I wonder why it's got so dangerous?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

It's not unfair at all.
This is something I call 'bias on selection' and the SCPs have already been capitalising on this effect for many years.

Not only do they like to install their cameras where the local KSI rate is statistically expected to fall over the next three years (after a temporary spike/surge/cluster of local KSIs) - known as RTTM, they also like to install other safety measures at camera sites such as: pedestrian crossings, barriers, redesigning nearby junctions... the list goes on. Note, the definition of a 'camera site' can be very wide ranging, one site 'covering' several miles of road. Obviously all these other good measures will lead to a reduction of KSIs (over and above RTTM) at their respective camera sites, but that reduction won't be anything to do with the camera. Camera proponents won't tell you about that - well they haven't done so for over a decade anyway!

That's really dirty huh?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

The top and bottom of reducing limits left right and centre is motorists driving around slower but still as abysmally, i too listened to Jezza Vine on radio 2 yesterday, the main lady featuring raised enough points other than her choice of what velocity she chooses to drive at, to validate her driving as being good in my opinion. I accept that different drivers have differing levels of skill and factor that into my driving (I do 40,000 miles a year for my job), i accept that 30mph to one driver will feel like 70mph to another and this is reflected in their driving. My only gripe with slow drivers is a) if their overall ability at controlling a vehicle is poor b) if their observation of the road and ability to anticipate situations is poor c) their consideration for other motorists is lacking (i will never prevent anyone from overtaking me and will even assist by moving over fractionly and lifting off). However a fair fraction of slow drivers i come across (as well as faster drivers) do lack my aforementioned criteria. You can see some slow drivers having to use more of their mental capacity compared to other drivers, just to go in a straight line, leaving less capacity to deal with and cope with other demands / situations (you tend to see them lent forward over the wheel like a learner driver).
As mentioned I do a lot of miles and can honestly say the majority of potential accident causing driving I see is nothing to do with a persons speed, but simple things like not checking mirrors, poor positioning of the vehicle, not indicating their intentions, not spotting and reacting in time to hazards, and overall just poor observation of whats happening on the road.

Well said LD-01, i too used to drive in excess of 50k per annum (not so much now though) and like yourself, when at the wheel for 8 hours or more, you notice things that these office bound beaurocrats don't. It's just a shame that they can't do a years solid driving and then they could call themselves "road safety experts". It's like me classing myself as a skiing expert when I only go two or three weeks a year. I'm a fair skier but wouldn't even attempt to call my self a ski safety expert.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

I would disagree, on the basis that there are reasons that a driver either speeds or drives at a speed that is excesive for the road, weather, traffic conditions.

Get to that stage and you have root causes - they may be attitude based or skill (or lack of skill based) but if you can keep asking why you haven't hit the root cause.

As for the argument that speed is a primary cause because 99.9% of accidents involved a moving vehcle it doesn't hold as it's a branch loop that keeps going round in circles.

I've spent my career investigating accidents with a view of learning lessons and prevention, the current system looks at 'who can be prosecuted - two very different perspectives which are reflected in investigation methodology.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

Ain't it strange that we always comes back to one or more of the COAST skills being missing? CO(A)ST is an extension of OAP .per Roadcraft. OAP (especilly Plan means very little to many... so we defined "Plan" a bit more. for DIS/SAC assessment criteria ... as in "decide what to do by allowing more space and time..

I have also listened again to the Vine prog. I do not think the lady was "daft" by driving 5 mph below the limit .. and she did raise the same arguments as many on this board as regards s/cam logic.

Our problem seems to be a "glib quick fix" instead of a more serious stripping down of the "attitude/skills/complacency problems" and devising a training to address these faults. I will admit that police training still has further development potential. Not one person can claim to be perfect .. as to do so would be complacent.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

In Gear, until I did my advanced I'd never heard of COAST either form my driving instructor or any of the DfT driving books that I'd read.

If a driver isn't taught it, how can they apply it ?

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

Without trying to drift off topic too far here - I just tried (finally) to go listen again BUT it has gone from their website with a see our reasons page which says nothing about why this has been pulled. In light of the 'swearing moment' mentioned above I wonder if that was it ? Seems somewhat harsh ? Or maybe there is more in it than at first hearing? ANYONE got a copy - love to hear it ? - do get in touch. Who were the main people ?

I do think that there are several driver types (for another TOPIC for sure !), which is fascinating. And I think it is a group/s in there that cannot see what we see. They don't 'get' it. And then there are those that refuse to believe us in favor to those in 'charge'.
I would love to try and analyse this in depth (driver types) ... perhaps then we can explain it on their terms so that they can at least see/understand our point of view/s.
Then there is the government officials who's opinions we need to change or influence / guide etc into the right way of thinking with truth and fact based reasoning.

How worrying that some think that it seems to be a requirement (almost) to drive 'at / near' the posted limit. However, good safe progress when safe to do so, is frustrating when it may appear to others as 'deliberately slow'. You can do the safest thing and flag them as a 'moving hazard' and steer well clear passing as soon as it is safe to do so.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

People, in crowded conditions, do not behave in a "civilised" manner.
The roads are crowded.
The whole point of more, and lower, limits is to reduce speeds and hence reduce traffic.
The thinking may be wrong, but that is the way things are going.
You'll note that the budget allowed for "inflationary" increases in fuel, even though inflation is now in negative numbers, probably by setting an imaginary figure for inflation (0.4% + 5%).
I very much doubt that the proposed lower limits have anything to do with accidents, more to do with reducing the numbers of vehicles. But less vehicles + lower limits = less accidents.
Government win:Win

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

I've been driving around the roads here for years and have rarely seen anything dangerous. However, I have just been out to lunch and on a 5 minute journey to the pub have seen two examples of potentially dangerous overtaking (born of frustration, I imagine).

There was a Micra (yes, I know!) at the front of the queue and an Audi overtook it at a point where an industrial estate entrance joins on the right. The next car was an old Nova driven by an elderly guy and who overtook in a place where his low power car nearly caused him to have a head on with opposing traffic. Now, both of these were poorly judged driving decisions but would almost certainly not have happened if the limit was set correctly.

This demonstrates why limits set far away from the 85th percentile speed are potentially dangerous.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Having experience of 20 mph zones I'm not sure they're a good idea. Along with so-called traffic calming (speed bumps and lumps of concrete that protrude out into the road) I feel they increase the possibilty of accidents. A road I regularly drive down was 'converted' to a 20 mph zone with speed bumps put in place along with chicanes. In 15 years of driving down this road prior to this I never had a near-accident. In the year since the 'assault course for cars' was introduced I've had four near-accidents - two from kids cycling out onto the road, and two from cars coming from the opposite direction the latter admittedly because of the chicane system they've put in place rather the 20 mph limit. However, the kids on bikes are likely to have been lulled into a false sense of security because of a combination of the 20 mph/bumps/chicanes and perhaps use the 'not-quite-a-road-anymore' (as one of the bike kids said) as a playground and no longer paid attention. I know in areas where speed limits are slow (<15mph) people walk around cars as if they weren't there. It seems to give pedestrians the excuse to switch off their brains.

One point I'd like to make about the 20 mph specifically is that I'm a cyclist as well as a driver. 20 mph can easily be achieved and surpassed if one is fit enough (and yes officer, I believe I'll also be caught for speeding - I almost got fined for doing 37mph once but he let me off with a smile unfortunately - proof of such a speed would have been framed and hung on the wall). I find myself very often overtaking cars in slow moving traffic. I know a lot of motorists don't pay attention all the time (I'm one of them and we've all been there) so as a cyclist I'm always vigilant in such situations. However, restricting cars to a permanent 20 mph is loading even more pressure on the motorist as they now have to be continually aware of cyclists where before they only really needed to be aware when they overtook them or when pulling out of junctions, etc. Pressure is also mounted on the cyclist as he is now effectively part of the traffic flow at 20 mph. Will the cyclist casualties be up with motorbike casualties as a result?

As a cyclist I would rather have a car overtake me quickly than have one hovering off my back wheel.

As a motorist, I personally feel it is unsafe to reduce speed limits to a point where the increased need for concentration (ref. cyclists) is also blighted by increased frustration from going too slowly and the inevitable increase in queues, and the potentially increased tiredness as a result of being at the wheel longer (e.g., in hot weather).

Then there's the environmental costs - cars produce relatively more pollutants at 20 mph than 30 mph.

PS. You should know that as a cyclist I have had one or two accidents as well as several near-misses. None my fault, e.g., cars pulling out of junctions right in front of me, cars pulling into park and pushing me into the kerb/pavement, etc. None of these accidents was due to the car's speed and all have been due to the driver's 'undue care and attention' and 'lack of consideration'. A speed limit of 20 mph will NOT counteract these fundamental problems.

PPS. I'm also a politician but not an MP I'm afraid. Suffice to say that the issues are known about and I think you can guess where I/we stand.

Hi


I understand. We really do need to address responsibilty .. safety led road use .. comprehensibly for all.


enjoyed readng your first post. I think you talk sense and remain compliant with the law too.

Will reply in depth later .. but . You ADD to the debate.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Hi and Welcome stevegarrod and What-his-name
Safe Speed welcomes all views here, and we debate openly and always in a friendly cordial manner.

The dft figures from 2006 show clearly that for :
In 20mph zones 17% of injury crashes were fatal or serious
In 30mph zones 13% of injury crashes were fatal or serious

That's a 4% increase.

They have yet to explain these figures, yet they may insist on rolling out the 20mph zones and ignoring these stats.

You cannot roll along on belief alone, it has to be backed up.
These figures destroy the general argument that driving slower means smaller crashes. Worse crashes are occurring in 20mph zones.
Shifting the balance form responsibility to regulation simply does not and will not work.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Please note: off topic posts have been moved to here.

Don't you mean 20mph "safe" zones?