mpaton2004 wrote:
I believe those driving @ 50 in a 40 are less likely to do 50 in a 30, particularly if there's a risk of enforcement so overall speeds should come down (if not exactly at the speed limit) so there is a benefit.
Recently, and not far from here, a young lad was killed on a single carriageway NSL road. The police quoted in the local paper said he was doing "well over 80". Naturally, there are a few local residents calling for a 40 limit on that stretch of road. To be honest, the chances of the lad seeing the 40 sign and saying to himself "oh well, I'd best call it a day at 60" are remote, to say the least. That's not how indestructible teenage lads think! On the other hand, picture the law-abiding experienced driver who slows down to 40 for that stretch. All that will happen is that he'll get tailgated (as you quite rightly say) by someone who knows the road and knows that it's fine at 60 and is in a hurry. Eventually, said tailgater will loose patience and carry out a lunatic overtaking manoeuvre - probably on a bend, and cause another serious or fatal accident.
The tailgaters have always been there. They usually drive Vectras or
chav-cars. Regardless of the speed limit, they'll always be up your arse.
Quote:
No, there comes a point when even a Vectra (or even an Astramax van for that matter!) will run out of steam! OK, that's facetious but seriously, that's just not how it works in real life. IF you drove at 10MPH in a 30 limit, EVERYONE would tailgate you. IF you drove at 20 MPH in a 30 limit, fewer (but still most) people would tailgate you. If you drove at 30 in a 30 limit, fewer still would tailgate you. If you drove at 50 in a 30 limit, you'd be very unlikely to get tailgated - other than by the odd nutter in a Vectra and to be honest, it wouldn't matter (as you say) what the speed limit was - someone like that will ALWAYS tailgate. I think it's bizzare that the problem here is SOME (by no means ALL) drivers who are tailgating and you actually believe that by driving slower, you will somehow make this problem better! The ONLY answer is to educate the tailgater! Otherwise it's a bit like saying that painting double yellow lines outside banks will stop bank robbers because they wouldn't want to break the law by parking illegally!
If there were no speed limits, everyone would drive at whatever speed they felt appropriate. Clearly, there would be some who drove way too fast for any given set of conditions. The majority, however, probably wouldn't. Indeed, that's exactly the situation we had before speed limits.
Indeed, and deaths and serious injuries were many times higher than they are now.
Aw come on now! Do you think that there just MIGHT, possibly be the teensiest smidgin of a chance that there are maybe some other factors to consider here?
Quote:
As soon as you introduce a speed limit, you're effectively saying:
"someone in office whose job it is to know about these things has decided that "X" MPH is a safe maximum speed so you good citizens don't need to trouble your little brains any more worrying about what's appropriate".
Nope, the speed limit says "You must select an appropriate speed not greater than the speed indicated or implied by the sign" - it says absolutely nothing about safe speeds. If the maximum speed is safe, then travel at it. It implies that if you consider a higher speed the limit to be appropriate, then the limit must be just as appropriate!
-We'll have to differ there. I don't understand the last sentence.
Quote:
My feeling is that if you introduce 20 MPH limits where most people would naturally drive at 20 anyway, there won't be much point so you may as well not bother. If you introduce them in areas where most people would naturally drive faster, you'll just end up with more speeding convictions. Either way, you won't have any effect on road safety.
I don't agree with this, I know of one 20 limit which has homes with doors leading directly out on to the narrow pavement. However, drivers don't bother with it, because it's a dead straight road and quite wide. People just don't seem to be looking at the bigger picture as to why a limit has been set, and then because they don't appreciate it, they ignore it, which in a case like this one could be deadly due to the proximity of the hazard to the road.
...so EDUCATE the drivers to the hazards!
Quote:
Why can't advocates of the "red flag" learn from the past? We've seen a general lowering and massive enforcement of speed limits in this country over the last ten years. Where is the corresponding reduction in deaths and serious injuries that has gone with it?
Personally I think that people are relying more and more on their cars to protect them, whereas in the past, you had to be far more careful because if you crashed in something like a Talbot Samba, you're likely to come off a lot worse. Faith in technology? I don't know, but driving standards are going frankly rubbish. Education only works on those who listen.
Sadly there is no carrot for safe and legal driving, only a stick if you don't comply. As I said in another thread, if you exceed the speed limit on your IAM, RoSPA,etc.. advanced driving or motorcycling test, you will fail. Are these drivers limit-obsessed zombies who can't maintain a safe and legal speed without staring at the speedo? I think not.[/quote]
No, they are respected organisations who, regardless what they might think privately, can't be seen to be condoning law-breaking. I think you'll agree that the traffic police are also a widely respected body when it comes to driving and I think you might find the odd one or two that have strayed over the limit on occasions and don't feel that they endangered anyone in the process! You never know, you might even find the odd copper who is also a member of the IAM - now there's a dilema!
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
