Safe Speed Forums

So why do rural nsl roads have less accidents/100mvkms than urban roads?

_________________
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 rather have no one drive into the back of me thats why I would want our safest roads, the motorways, to stay the safest and NOT have 30MPH limits on them.

_________________
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.

Er, less hazards?

Rural NSL roads are still high up the list of the most dangerous roads though.

so what hazards do urban roads have compared to rural? Don't forget rural roads have trees, sharp bends, hump back bridges etc etc.

_________________
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.

To illustrate how ridiculous that statement is, let's rewrite it slightly so as not to change the meaning:

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Are you being serious? How on earth did you deduce that logical step. Go back and reread the posts weepej!

What of the question I posed to you?


Would they?
Looks like I will have to repeat myself:
"Fatigue is the obvious confounding issue (stimulation and journey time)". Would that issue not be far, far, far worse than it already is?
Couple that with risk homeostasis.
Then there is the increased tendency for other road user groups would be more inclined to use them, so increasing risk.
Of course, no sane driver would abide by such a foolish blanket limit, so practically everyone would ignore them, lulling the other road users into a false sense of security.
Like I said yo you many times previously: "which effect wins?"

But it's so much more than that. Had the motorways suffered such a drastic change, folks would be displaced to "less safe roads" (no weepej, they're 'not less safe because they are slower'), so making the overall effect over the whole road network worse.


Indeed, but what of the roads? That was the question (independent of drivers).


Why would you do that when it was you who made the claim we are discussing:

This is your claim, I have asked you to support it with a reasonable measure.
"Per unit distance driven, are those who go faster represented more in crashes than those who go slower? "

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

it looks like weepej has crawled back under his stone, leaving unanswered questions...once again.

_________________
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.

Steve, that's something which weepej seems either unable or unwilling to understand:

They're not less safe because they're slower, they're slower because they're less safe.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Is this really necessary?

Can't quite understand why my original statement is ridiculous.

If I driver into the back of 100 healthy fit drivers at 15 mph I bet most of them won't be injured, maybe some might have some neck problems, maybe if I'm particularly unlucky I might kill one (although that's unlikely).

Drive into the back of those 100 drivers at 50 mph it's highly likely I'll kill several.

Please everyone, remember to address the points, not cast needless insults.

You're clearly attempting to link "safest roads" and "fastest". The two are not related.



I did say that in the scenario all drivers stick to to the limit, it's a thought experiment. OK, we'll extend it to there being no displacement to other roads and no fatigue, hence motorway with 30mph limit much safer than motorway with 70mph limit which completely poops over your "our fastest roads are the safest" meme because I can take two motorways and put a 70 limit on one and a 30 limit on the other and deduce that the slower one would be safer.



A good driver would be able to cope well with any situation.

Only you made that deduction. I merely, rightly, pointed out that our fastest roads (motorways) happen to be the safest 'even though they are fastest' (for whatever reasons, such as hazard density), not "our safest roads because they are our fastest."

Do you understand this now? <sigh>


Well, if you are to remove all real-world factors such as the fatigue, the displacement, the risk homeostasis, disrespect for law.....
So what about back in the real world, where all these factors do apply: Which effect wins? (again, again, again, again.....)


I know these are daft, but you allow me to give these conclusions:
- Can we abolish all limits everywhere because "A good driver would be able to cope well with any situation"?
- Should we stop all road engineering simply because "A good driver would be able to cope well with any situation"?

If not, then could you answer the question posed to you?


Also, are you going to support the claim you made earlier as I have twice requested, or evade yet again?

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

I think that weepey and a few others are missing the point here. The fact is that the 85percentile speed is the safest ON ANY ROAD, because this is the speed that most drivers would find sufficiently stimulating to keep them alert and focussed. Driving too slow causes people minds to wander and concentration to lack, which causes mistakes and accidents. Driving too fast, for the person to react quick enough to hazards or to take corners etc, is also dangerous, so the speed in between, which people can react to hazards in enough time to correct any problems and at the same time keep themselves mentally alert to concentrate, as near to 100% as possible, on the job in hand, is obviously the safest speed.

_________________
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.

Ah come on. When arguing with somebody who thinks lower limits in urban environments will improve road safety a common line here is "but motorways are our safest roads, and they're our fastest".




Well, no, can think of several reasons why not. Pedestrians need to know how fast cars are going to be travelling, and big speed differentials would be an issue.



What I want to see stopped is the "motorwayisation" of roads in our towns and cities (and villages and the countryside). To its credit, this is happening in London; gyratorys are being removed; roadside barriers are being taken down and roads are being calmed.

Safest? Is that safe enough? (we've been here before!)

Case in point, watched "Motorway cops" on BBC1 tonight. Snow bound motorway, cops were dealing with two mini pileups, and the cop said there would be many more than night, "people will be coming off the motorway left right and centre because many drive too fast for the conditions".

Well it's got to be safer than 30MPH on a motorway..have you tried driving 200 miles at 30MPH , by the way? Why not try 30MPH next time you are on the motorway and come back with your findings.

By the way what's safer than "safest".....another unanswered question coming up.....

_________________
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.

You know what? When I cross the roads , I don't have aclue how fast a car is travelling but I do have the ability to judge if I can cross before it hits me or not, without it having a flashing sign on it's roof saying 39MPH...am I superhuman?

The road that I cross mostly, is a 40MPH limit reduced from 60MPH but guess what, the council survey says that 76% of drivers are exceeding the 40MPH limit...therefore by your reckoning, i have a 76% chance of miscalculating the speeds and getting run over....I wonder why I haven't.

_________________
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.

The main reason why people come a cropper in bad conditions is simple. Modern drivers are brainwashed to stick within a speed limit and all will be safe. The "saftey" cameras will leave you alone then because you are a "safe" driver.

_________________
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.