Why speed _limits_ suck

[sobrique]

Well, my previous post about speed cameras has also crossed over to a discussion of speed limits.

So -

Why speed limits suck:

* The motorways in the UK are some of the safest roads in the country, indeed even in Europe. The average speed tends towards 80/90 mph, somewhat above the posted speed limit.

* There is no arbitrary transition between safe as opposed to dangerous. At an absolute level, 5mph is safer than 30. However, when you're on a road where traffic is travelling at 60 miles an hour (regardless of posted limit) then being notably slower is _you_ causing a hazard to other drivers.

* The national speed restrictions in this country were introduced due to fuel consumption. Nothing to do with safety. Vehicle and material technology has improved greatly over the last 50 years, such that a new car at 90 is safer than a 50 year old car at 60.

* Safe driving is awareness of hazards, and objects around you. Velocity of vehicle is a primary causitive factor in 6% of accidents, and a 'secondary' factor in 7.3% (DoT report), information found http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/Facts&Figures/Facts&Figures_Home.htm
The greater ones being failure to judge other person's vector, and carelessness/thoughtlessness/recklessness.
One can argue that exceeding a posted limit counts as recklessness, but I remain unconvinced.

So how about we simply remove the national speed limit, and maybe ditch quite a few of the higher speed dual carriageway restrictions, and apply prosecutions under the basis of 'dangerous/careless driving' instead.

Comments

[paulw.livejournal.com]

The law is the law regardless of if you agree or disagree with it. 'Everyone else does it' is no excuse for breaking it yourself. A law that is an annoyance or is inconveniant to you doesn't give you the right to break it. We can't pick and choose here else I wouldn't pay taxes because I disagree with them, and don't even get me going on how I should be allowed to commit ABH on my users when they piss me off.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

A law that's annoying and incovenient is still a law, true. One can break it, accepting the consequences of doing so, or one can keep within it.

That doesn't stop me from disagreeing with a law that I consider incorrect. It doesn't stop me from trying to get it changed either.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

ABH against users may be a crime, but surely you can see the compelling argument that if one is ... well being one then the only rational action is to extend a hand, and slap them upside the head.

[purp1e-magic.livejournal.com]

This is really a matter of changing the law, not breaking it.

[purp1e-magic.livejournal.com]

If you are in an older car, then you can't do 90 odd, you tremble at anything past 80 and that doesnn't leave you with the oomph to carry out emergency manouvers, like overtaking idiots suddenly. Yet if you're going as slow as 60, even on todays motorways you're not keeping up with the traffic and being a potential hazard. If you abolish the speed limit people will drive generally faster, and your little older car is really dangerous. Which wouldn't stop people using them, as it is still the fastest and cheapest way to travel.

Another point, cars have got gradually safer over the years, but that has not made us safer drivers. Infact, to some extent, just the opposite. You drive to a level that feels safe to you, and as one perceives one is driving a safer car, the level of recklessness, personal space, and therefore stoppiing distance and general levels of carelessness go up. I got this from somebody a few years ago who was studying this stuff, so the info might be a bit out of date. But if it's true then letting people drive faster will only exasperate the problem.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

So should we just ban the 'less safe' cars from our roads? That strikes me as being an alternative solution. No cars older than 3 years allowed on a motorway? Or maybe have a 'safety categorisation' on a car that it a bit like an MOT, but of a much more stringent level, to allow them on motorways.

[purp1e-magic.livejournal.com]

I can't really see that working, because it's about comparitive ability of a car. Either you have to stop progress in the car manufacturing industry, or you have to continuously change the restictions on cars. That makes driving an expensive business. Also the road infrastructure is not built to take so much traffic on the smaller roads. It's always been about getting cars onto motorways, and out of towns and villages.

Also, a lot of our industry depends on motorways, in terms of freight. You can't just kick them off.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

We have to MOT our vehicles each year. Why not require a MOGVF (ministry of going very fast) test, in order to ... well go very fast ;p?

Freight uses roads extensively, this is true. But if they're not safe enough to do it, surely that's a disaster waiting to happen, and in the interests of public safey we need to stop them getting in our way...

[elrohana.livejournal.com]

Our car is 9 years old. It is serviced every 6 months whether its done the mileage or not, any faults are dealt with imediately by a very professional garage that guarantees its work, it's MOT'd every year, its insured fully comp, and driven by 2 very careful drivers, one of whom has over 20 years driving experience under their belt. Would you like to argue that this is less safe at 70 mph on the motorway than an 18-year-old chav in a brand new Golf doing 100 mph?

Thought not

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

But isn't the argument, when it comes to travelling at high speed (speed limit or not) that it's not a question of whether there's individual exceptions, where drivers are careful, or the car is in 'good nick' given it's age, but whether the majority fall into that category.

[elrohana.livejournal.com]

So you would penalise the good for the actions/inaction of the arsehole few?

Sounds like an average government* policy to me - have you thought of running for Prime Minister?

Point is, if people didn't break the law, we wouldn't be having ths argument. I happen to agree with the law (have you ever SEEN the results of a smash on a motorway at over 100 mph? - I have, when I lived in Germany - let's just say, no mater how good the car is, no-one walks away), you don't. However, legally I am in the right, and you are a criminal. Fact. If you want the law changing, lobby your MP. In the meantime, don't complain when you are caught, penalised and charged money for breaking the law.


* any government, not just the current one

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Isn't that the point of a law? If everyone were 'reasonable sorts' then there'd be no need for it at all. Therefore by it's very nature, the police exist because of the 'arsehole minority'.

If I were to point out, that by the letter of the law, this wasn't a legal speed restriction, would that change matters? Then I _wouldn't_ be a criminal, and yet I still have to go to an awful lot of effort in order to prove it.

Section 85 p 4 of the road traffic act:

(3) Subject to paragraphs (4), (5) and (6) and to direction 9, a sign to which this direction applies shall be placed on the relevant road at or as near as practicable to the point referred to in paragraph (2) -

(a) where the relevant road has only one carriageway, on each side of that carriageway; or

(b) where the relevant road has more than one carriageway, on each side of each carriageway in relation to which the restriction, requirement, prohibition or speed limit begins.

I may not be able to contest this in court, simply because legal costs are liable to be high.

So, shall we start the 'letter of the law, vs. the spirit of the law discussion again? :)

[veremit.livejournal.com]

1) If you wish to contest this matter do so - it is your legal and human right to do so. If you don't have the money - go get it. No excuse Ed.
I am currently in legal disputes (indirectly) with an agent marketing a product (supposedly) and I have no money, and nor does the guy who's actually progressing the dispute.

2) All persons who place traffic signs on the public highway have to go on a (Tedious) course to learn how to do. (nuts huh?!) This doesn't excuse the cowboys who forget, or those signs that get blown over, but their legal obligation (and license to so place such signs) means that those signs are at one time placed. I therefore wish you luck .... !

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

"So you would penalise the good for the actions/inaction of the arsehole few?"

Isn't that [i]precisely[/i] what speed limits do? Particularly those enforced by speed cameras rather than coppers?

[elrohana.livejournal.com]

Eh?

A speed limit is a law.

The only ones penalised by speed cameras are those who break the law.

How on earth does that relate to my comment? Sorry, but I'm completely at sea on this one. Perhaps you can explain?

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

Speed limits exist because some people drive dangerously. But are applied to all people and at all times. That is exactly what you just decried.

[veremit.livejournal.com]

The assumption therefore holds that travelling above the limit constitutes driving dangerously - or is that just too straight-forward.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

But that promotes the assumption that travelling below the limit isn't.
There's no binary state point at which you suddenly flip from 'safe' to 'dangerous'.

[elrohana.livejournal.com]

No. Speed limits exist because road planners are in possession of calculations which tell them what is a safe speed at which to travel on a given type of road, not because some people are arseholes.

Germany. Famous for motorways without speed limits.

Do they really have no speed limits? Actually, no, they have lots of speed limits, in fact, anywhere where the road planners feel they are necessary. I have driven on stretches of motorway where the speed limit is 70 kph. i.e. slower than on a British motorway. Why? Cos its a bendy, twisty stretch in an exposed location and therefore liable to black ice, surface water, crosswinds etc etc. Or any number of other perfectly valid reasons.

I'm afraid yours is possibly the least sensible comment I have seen in this discussion so far.

[veremit.livejournal.com]

On the subject of freight, how many are in favour of totally banning overtaking of lorries on motorways .. if a lorry is too slow - Tough.

Minimum speed limits are available in UK signage - only I've never seen any. There are plenty of occasions I would like to see them applied to roads in this country ...

[veremit.livejournal.com]

random revision...

Why isn't there a scheme to return to freighting by rail? Dr Beeching has a hell of a lot to answer for imho!
(And yes, I'm aware of the argument that the source and destination is never near a mainline station)

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Actually, Alstom where I work has a railway station all of it's own.
Well, a it's 10 meters from the main line, and there's a 'bit' where trains can stop to be loaded.

Problem is, all the bridges are too low now, for the size of turbine we make :)

[crashbarrier.livejournal.com]

I think there should be a Driving safety certificate. You have to take every so many years.. like pilots have and first aiders..

It should be mandatory for insurance.. an MOT for drivers..


Sorry but after nearly being killed by muppet Dominoe's delivery guy on Dysfunction Junction Sunday I'm kinda on edge about stuff like this.

[elrohana.livejournal.com]

I agree, Crashbarrier. It would remove a hell of a lot of muppets from the roads. Sadly a lot would remain - the ones who are already driving with no licence, MOT or insurance, and their numbers are greater than you might think.

There was a case up here some years ago where an entire taxi firm turned out to be driving on colour photocopies of ONE driving licence.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Redoing driving tests on a regular basis is a fairly good idea. It'll never happen in this country though, simply because the majority of drivers aren't convinced they'd pass a second time.

When I'm prime minister, I think I shall change all the driving laws such that everyone's license expires after 6 years, with retests set for every 5. (so you've a year to learn how to drive again if you fail).

And all shall hate me as I laugh maniacally at their feeble protests.

[elrohana.livejournal.com]

I'm not convinced I'd pass again either - standards for the test have changed sooooo much since I took mine - no theory test, hell, I think seatbelts were only just law and I don't think rear seatbelt use was! - but I'd submit to the test if it was necessary, and probably suck up the cost of the lessons to get through it again too. But then, I don't claim to be an above average driver, just a careful and thoughtful one.

[the-wood-gnome.livejournal.com]

It would however mean that everyone would _need_ to be up to date with new driving laws, signs and junctions etc.

[crashbarrier.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately there not much you can do about people driving illegally except punish them to the highest degree when they are caught.

[paulw.livejournal.com]

Thats the thing though isn't it. People are not punished to the highest degree. We should chop off the right foot for those induhviduals who are caught 3 times for driving without license/insurance/tax. For each time after that they loose another limb.

Aren't they doing research on cars which have GPS systems and some sort of receiver/database and this limits the car depending on where it is?

[malal.livejournal.com]

Urban speedlimits I'm happy with and agree with completely. The "How likely you are to survive" statistics are a great arguement for them & pretty hard to counter. The real issue is for high speed roads, like motorways.

Now, I'm more ambivilent about that, but I can think of one good arguement for keeping them as they are.

First the assumptions:

1. Our roads are becoming more crowded / overcrowded.

2. Keeping a good stopping distance between you and the car in front (think two second rule) is a Really Good Thing (TM).

Right. Given that, it actually turns out that on a motorway you actually get the most throughput at 50mph. Below that, car's aren't going fast enough. Above that, the benefit of moving faster gets completely swamped by the exponential increase in stopping distances. I'm sure there may be some fine detail that's not taken into account, but it's still a pretty interesting fact. And as an exercise left to a reader, can be used to argue for motorway limits to come down to 50mph... :-P

But Not Making the problem Worse does strike me as a good enough reason to keep the 70mph limit.