Safe Speed Forums

suppose I accept the proposal that the main cause of carnage on our roads is not speed, and people ignoring things like the safety lights on the motorways.

What harm would it do to obey these instructions anyway???

If excess speed is ONE factor in a more complex equation by obeying the limits would I not be lessening the danger??

Why do the users on this forum appear to get hot under the collar when asked to stick to the limit??

Do you really need to get home 24 seconds earlier, take life easier, have a chill pill, cool down.

_________________
Why not put on speed limiters we have the technology only idiots break the speed limit

I have no problem when speed limits are set at sensible levels. But more and more they are not.

Why should a clear dual carriage way with no hazards whatsoever have a 40 limit imposed on it?

Would you be happy with 20mph speed limits in all urban areas?

What do you consider a safe speed to drive?

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

If the limit was set I would stik to it, the dificulty is that I have to suffer the inconvienience of speed bumps that ae not there to ctch me but the moronic few who know better than stck to the limit set.

_________________
Why not put on speed limiters we have the technology only idiots break the speed limit

no they're there to stop idiots like you who stick to the limit "because it's the limit" but are completely oblivious to anything more than a few feet in front of them.

That's a reasonable question, to which a reasonable answer might be, none.



It's a very complex equation, of which speed is a small part - so, all other things being equal, yes it will.
But, as all the other factors in the equation are interdependent, all other things can never be equal - which reduces the answer to, maybe, maybe not.
And it also depends on the magnitude and weighting of the other factors.
To illustrate, here's a simple equation: a = b + c. If you decrease b by 1, a will also decrease by 1. But if you also increase c by 10, a will increase by 9.



We don't get hot under the collar for that reason, but because people assert that simply sticking to the speed limits is the be-all and end-all of road safety. It's not, and never can be. There are far more important aspects to road safety than sticking to the speed limit, but these are routinely ignored.

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

Driving under a regime where drifting over the limit can have a very serious impact on wallet and licence comes with side effects that influence driver psychology, concentration and actions.

The question is, "is there a net benefit?"

No wonder you "suffer" driving over speed hump if you're "sticking to the limit" all the time - just becuase 30mph is the limit doesen't mean you should drive over them at that speed you fool.


Try slowing down a bit.

The net benfits of sticking to the limit.

1) you dont gather fines and points.

2) you are less likely to have an accident.

3) any accident you have is likely to be less severe.

Come on its simple

_________________
Why not put on speed limiters we have the technology only idiots break the speed limit

What ever complex sums you try to baffle people with the simple fact is that speed is a factor in acidents and 5mph in a 30 zone can make the difference between life and death.

simple

_________________
Why not put on speed limiters we have the technology only idiots break the speed limit

Well, gee, thanks.
Actually I think that we should all thank you from the bottom of our hearts for giving us the benefit of your vast knowledge of how road safety works.
You have really shown us the error of our ways.
Now, if you've got nothing to add, I've got better things to do.

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

Working on your algebra homework no doubt!!

_________________
Why not put on speed limiters we have the technology only idiots break the speed limit

...which is something you obviously never did, given that you're baffled by such a simple equation.

At least we think. You, on the other hand, simply regurgitate all the cr*p you've been fed.

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

I don't have any, I have not had any for over ten years, I got my last set long before speed cameras arrived on the scene.


None of the accidents I have been involved in have involved speeding over the limit. In fact they were all well within the speed limit. The statistics show this is the norm. Very few accidents (around 3%) involve speed over the posted limit.


This attitude assumes that accidents canot be avoided and you can only minimise the outcome. Fact: An alert driver travelling slightly over the speed limit will impact at a lower speed than a dozy driver tavelling below the speed limit.


We wish it was.

I take it that you drive at 30mph down narrow streets with parked cars "because it's the limit" and therefore must be automatically safe.

Actually an alert driver travelling at well over the speed limit would probably see the hazard and not crash at all. The Stupid Minority who think that all you need to do to be safe is 'stick the limit' are far more likely to crash.

I am a young driver, having only passed my test around 4 months ago. I am very inexperienced.

Because of this "speed camera culture", where ever I see speed camera signs, my eyes are spent more looking at my speedometer than the road. My driving instructors made a big deal of speed limit compliance, and that method of teaching, whilst I know keeps me within the law, does NOTHING for my safety. Infact, because I don't want to rack up any points (and since I'm new, 6 points is a ban), my eyes are glued to the speedo. How is this safe? Whilst I admit I am inexperienced and am less able to judge a safe speed than an experienced driver, surely this means in danger areas I'm more likely to go too fast, rather than being instinctively cautious, because of the false message that "if I'm within the speed limit, I'm safe". We get told that speed limits are set for a reason, implying that if we stick to the speed limits we are fine.

Not necessarily. If you drive dangerously but within the limit, you could even get yourself banned.

Not so. The vast majority of accidents don't involve speed in excess of the speed limit. Those that involve excessive speed (but within the limit) are, I suspect, the result of the fixation of numpties on whether you are travelling faster than some arbitrary limit set without consideration of the conditions at the actual time of journey. IMO, the current obsession with speed limits to the exclusion of proper factors of road safety sends a very strong message to your average joe. It says, "Your primary responsibility to road safety is to obey the speed limit, and if you do that you will be safe." Now, driving into the back of a stationary queue of traffic at 30mph is clearly unsafe - yet it does obey the speed limit. Many drivers now believe that they are safe because they obey the speed limit - and they have that belief even though the antics they get up to sometimes border on suicidal. We need to get the policy changed before it kills even more.


Personally, I'd rather not have an accident in the first place. However, the sort of accidents that current policy "encourages" are due to lack of attention. An alert driver will brake sooner and so is likely to be travelling more slowly at the point of impact (although, an alert driver probably won't have that impact) than a half-asleep numpty who is confident that he is a safe driver because he obeys the limit and who doesn't spot the danger until much later, and so is much later starting to brake. IOW, accident severity is a function of impact speed, not free-travelling speed, and an alert driver who drives to the conditions is likely to be travelling more slowly at the point of impact and is less likely to be the cause of the accident than someone on autopilot who drives solely to the speed limit.


Yes it is - it's called COAST, which is a mnemonic for the five most important factors of road safety - Concentration, Observation, Anticipation, Space, and Time. Notice that speed doesn't appear in that list. This is because speed is not a primary factor in road safety. If you ensure that you have enough space and time, you will travel at an appropriate speed for the conditions.

In a nutshell, we need to get the authorities off their fixation on speed and on to proper safety issues. AIUI, that's what this forum is all about.

_________________
Will

Paul,

Some time ago, I think you posted a graph on the CSCP forum showing HVG accidents before and fater speed limiters were fitted. I have a vague feeling it showed that HGV accidents went down and then back up again a year or so later. Was that the case?

Though I hate to say it, given the arrogant nature of some of TSM's posts here, s/he does have a point. I drive at the speed limits (and it's harder for me cos I drive a truck...try sticking at 40 on any big A road and see how hard it is) and I've always had a clean licence (17 years so far, 7 on lorries). I don't stare at the speedo all the time; I know how fast I'm going because I was doing 30 the last time I looked and the engine note hasn't changed since. I can get up to any speed now and sit at it without looking at the dash at all, because I know the vehicles I drive. I appreciate that this is a function of experience behind the wheel. I also agree with the majority on this site that cameras and speed limits are not the be all and end all of road safety. BUT, the fact remains that if the speed limits are posted and you don't stick to them, you haven't been alert enough to spot the limit signs. Which is surely a bad thing: after all, what else might you have missed?
Yes I know cameras are indiscriminatory and that 32 mph is not as bad an offence as tailgating or drunk driving or pulling out in front of people or passing too close to bikes or....well, you know. But driving at the posted limit is not hard, even if it doesn't always make sense.
Comments please?

I can't hear the engine at all in my Accord auto. Even if I could, whilst at 70 mph the converter is locked up and would give a constant speed, at lower speeds, the engine note could vary by around 25% in the same gear and could even be in a different gear depending on the incline and other conditions. Almost impossible these days in modern cars to tell the absolute speed from noise heard, even if one is blessed/cursed with perfect pitch and has an in-built look up table..