Lower limits on country roads - more PC Bullsh*t
Discussion
From www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-327427,00.html
Rural lane limit should be 40mph, say MPs
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
SPEED limits on rural roads should be sharply reduced to prevent accidents that claim 1,800 lives each year, an influential Commons committee will report next week.
The 60mph standard limit on country lanes is encouraging motorists to drive dangerously and should be cut to 40mph. The limit through villages should be cut to 30mph.
The Transport Select Committee will recommend that the standard limit be replaced by a hierarchy of speeds depending on the size and quality of the road. The limit for C roads should be reduced from 60mph to 40mph and on B roads from 60mph to 50mph.
While the committee will propose that the limit on A roads should stay at 60mph, it says that local authorities should be given new guidance allowing them to vary the limit to suit the particular road. Some dangerous A roads would be reduced to 40mph and long, straight stretches of B and C roads would be allowed to remain at 60mph.
Road safety campaigners believe that the new speeds would help drivers to keep to a safe limit. Motorists can still be prosecuted for dangerous driving even if they stay within the current limits. Hundreds of road deaths each year are caused by drivers who are observing the speed limit but driving too fast for the conditions.
More than half of all road deaths occur on rural roads. Motorways are far safer, accounting for fewer than 200 of the 3,400 annual road deaths.
The committee is likely to reject calls by the RAC and other motoring groups for the motorway limit to be raised to 80mph. About 55 per cent of drivers routinely break the 70mph limit and police told the MPs that drivers would exploit any increase to drive even faster, breaking the new limit by the same proportion.
Engineers from the Transport Research Laboratory told the committee that increasing the speed limit on motorways would widen the differential between fast and slow-moving traffic, increasing the risk of a collision between a speeding car which catches up with a motorist driving at 40-50mph.
The committee will also criticise the Government’s move to order 28 police forces to paint speed cameras yellow. Ministers have admitted that they have no evidence to show that making cameras conspicuous would improve road safety. Road safety groups believe that the move could lead to a rise in deaths because drivers may brake when they see a camera and speed up again after passing it.
The Department of Transport said that excessive speed contributed to more than 1,100 deaths and 12,600 serious injuries in 2000. Tests have shown that a 1mph reduction in average speed results in a 5 per cent reduction in crashes.
The Transport Act 2000 gave local authorities the power to designate roads as quiet lanes or home zones with a 10mph speed limit, but few councils have taken advantage of their new powers.
Rural lane limit should be 40mph, say MPs
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
SPEED limits on rural roads should be sharply reduced to prevent accidents that claim 1,800 lives each year, an influential Commons committee will report next week.
The 60mph standard limit on country lanes is encouraging motorists to drive dangerously and should be cut to 40mph. The limit through villages should be cut to 30mph.
The Transport Select Committee will recommend that the standard limit be replaced by a hierarchy of speeds depending on the size and quality of the road. The limit for C roads should be reduced from 60mph to 40mph and on B roads from 60mph to 50mph.
While the committee will propose that the limit on A roads should stay at 60mph, it says that local authorities should be given new guidance allowing them to vary the limit to suit the particular road. Some dangerous A roads would be reduced to 40mph and long, straight stretches of B and C roads would be allowed to remain at 60mph.
Road safety campaigners believe that the new speeds would help drivers to keep to a safe limit. Motorists can still be prosecuted for dangerous driving even if they stay within the current limits. Hundreds of road deaths each year are caused by drivers who are observing the speed limit but driving too fast for the conditions.
More than half of all road deaths occur on rural roads. Motorways are far safer, accounting for fewer than 200 of the 3,400 annual road deaths.
The committee is likely to reject calls by the RAC and other motoring groups for the motorway limit to be raised to 80mph. About 55 per cent of drivers routinely break the 70mph limit and police told the MPs that drivers would exploit any increase to drive even faster, breaking the new limit by the same proportion.
Engineers from the Transport Research Laboratory told the committee that increasing the speed limit on motorways would widen the differential between fast and slow-moving traffic, increasing the risk of a collision between a speeding car which catches up with a motorist driving at 40-50mph.
The committee will also criticise the Government’s move to order 28 police forces to paint speed cameras yellow. Ministers have admitted that they have no evidence to show that making cameras conspicuous would improve road safety. Road safety groups believe that the move could lead to a rise in deaths because drivers may brake when they see a camera and speed up again after passing it.
The Department of Transport said that excessive speed contributed to more than 1,100 deaths and 12,600 serious injuries in 2000. Tests have shown that a 1mph reduction in average speed results in a 5 per cent reduction in crashes.
The Transport Act 2000 gave local authorities the power to designate roads as quiet lanes or home zones with a 10mph speed limit, but few councils have taken advantage of their new powers.
Some of what has been said is very true, some is rubbish. I live in a small village which has an A road runnig through it, it's very tight in places and there's a school, and shopping area. 30mph is too fast for this road through the village, but on the aproaches to and from the village 40mph is too slow!
The lanes around here are a mixture of 40mph and NSL, some are safe to do 100mph and some are safe for about 20mph.
I guess what I am trying to say is that people Should drive according to conditions and surroundings,rather than posted speed limits.
As for the Motorway, people doing 40/50mph on a motorway should be prosecuted for dangerous driving!
>> Edited by simonelite501 on Sunday 16th June 08:43
The lanes around here are a mixture of 40mph and NSL, some are safe to do 100mph and some are safe for about 20mph.
I guess what I am trying to say is that people Should drive according to conditions and surroundings,rather than posted speed limits.
As for the Motorway, people doing 40/50mph on a motorway should be prosecuted for dangerous driving!
>> Edited by simonelite501 on Sunday 16th June 08:43
quote:
Tests have shown that a 1mph reduction in average speed results in a 5 per cent reduction in crashes.
This is typical of the misinformation and outright lies used to justify this sort of interference. I believe this is a reference to a small study many years ago, that looked into the correlation between speed and accident rate. They has a tiny sample size, there were many factors they didn't take into account, and the results were statistically meaningless. Just like the 'one third of accidents caused by excess speed' nonesense that is quoted so often. It really annoys me to see people successfully taking away my rights with no rational justification.
Not allowed to think for youself anymore. Statistics in a survey in 1923 showed that its clearly unsafe for the masses to have a view on things. God forbid, they may have a different view or know better.
PS. some figures (good or bad) on here to compare. www.rospa.co.uk/CMS/
Banning homes next.
>> Edited by JMorgan on Sunday 16th June 12:13
PS. some figures (good or bad) on here to compare. www.rospa.co.uk/CMS/
Banning homes next.
>> Edited by JMorgan on Sunday 16th June 12:13
quote:
Tests have shown that a 1mph reduction in average speed results in a 5 per cent reduction in crashes.
Taking this to it's logical conclusion, i.e. looking at real world evidence, I'd be surprised if, out of twenty crashes, they could find 1 which would have been prevented by a 1mph reduction in speed by those involved. Sure, it would reduce energy etc, but prevent the crash? Dunno.
I think it just goes to show that you can manipulate stats to show almost anything you like, provided you omit some vital footnotes...
This stuff makes me want to throw up. You don'r get much good news from our dear Government these days.
Good news examples:
1)We've been so efficient this year we can afford to reduce taxes next year.
2)Stamp duty is an unnecessary discriminatory tax on the South - we've raised the thresholds and tiered the tax to make it fairer.
3)Employers NI contributions have increased taxes by stealth means in such a way that the average employee doesn't see them - but owner operators, directors and partners are unfairly discriminiated against. We've abolished the Employers costs and only marginally raised the empoloyee's costs - so that they can see what they are paying!
AND PIGS MIGHT FLY!
Good news examples:
1)We've been so efficient this year we can afford to reduce taxes next year.
2)Stamp duty is an unnecessary discriminatory tax on the South - we've raised the thresholds and tiered the tax to make it fairer.
3)Employers NI contributions have increased taxes by stealth means in such a way that the average employee doesn't see them - but owner operators, directors and partners are unfairly discriminiated against. We've abolished the Employers costs and only marginally raised the empoloyee's costs - so that they can see what they are paying!
AND PIGS MIGHT FLY!
most of the dam problem round my way is the dumb parants let small chillderen play chickin with the cars in the middel of the dam road.
the the dam towns littered with em them. Then they wonder why the littel brats get run over and start campaining for lower limmet`s instead of, teaching the little brats not to stand in the road playing lets see if i can get runouver today game.
round my way its not unushll to find toddlers still in nappys waking about in the middel of the road with the dumb mothers and farthers nowhere to be seen.
had one the other day with one small child pushing another child off the pavement under my wheels
5foot in frount of me
i was only doing about 15mph in a 40 but if it had been older with slower reactions or in a car with normal brakes and not large disk converstion with abs. I would have run over his head.
no great lose to the local jean pool.
no dout if the littel brats had got flatend then my inshrance would have been screwed.
and the road would have got a set of speed bumps.
the parants of small chidren should be fined for letting the brats play in the middel of the road in the first place.
>> Edited by outlaw on Sunday 16th June 17:20
the the dam towns littered with em them. Then they wonder why the littel brats get run over and start campaining for lower limmet`s instead of, teaching the little brats not to stand in the road playing lets see if i can get runouver today game.
round my way its not unushll to find toddlers still in nappys waking about in the middel of the road with the dumb mothers and farthers nowhere to be seen.
had one the other day with one small child pushing another child off the pavement under my wheels
5foot in frount of me
i was only doing about 15mph in a 40 but if it had been older with slower reactions or in a car with normal brakes and not large disk converstion with abs. I would have run over his head.
no great lose to the local jean pool.
no dout if the littel brats had got flatend then my inshrance would have been screwed.
and the road would have got a set of speed bumps.
the parants of small chidren should be fined for letting the brats play in the middel of the road in the first place.
>> Edited by outlaw on Sunday 16th June 17:20
I think, and I've said it before it's all part of the UK dumbing down.
People are generally more stupid these days, so laws are put into place to protect the knuckle draggers (from themselves) and all of us then have to suffer.
Mr Clarkson really summed it up in last weeks Sunday Times.
People are generally more stupid these days, so laws are put into place to protect the knuckle draggers (from themselves) and all of us then have to suffer.
Mr Clarkson really summed it up in last weeks Sunday Times.
quote:
I think, and I've said it before it's all part of the UK dumbing down.
People are generally more stupid these dcays, so laws are put into place to protect the knukle draggers (from themselves) and all of us then have to suffer.
Mr Clarkson really summed it up in last weeks Sunday Times.
Its just a shame that they keep giving out uniforms to too many knukle draggers.
quote:
It's not the guys in the uniforms, it's the ones making the rules that the uniform-wearers have to enforce.
EXACTLY. If they go along with it. They are the monkeys dragging there knuckles
Not the organ grinder.
If they do the job and are against the silly rules and enforce rules that they dont belive in, then they are a puppet on a string.
and as bigger part of the problem as the ones making the bent rules. In the first place.
>> Edited by outlaw on Sunday 16th June 21:38
Another step towards anarchy on the roads.....
If the drug rules were applied here then speeding would be shown a "blind eye"...... if 55% (thats a majority as far as I rememeber from Maths 101) ignore the posted limit, then the posted limit is WRONG!!! Simple.
If they keep this up (and I am sure that they will), eventually no-one will take any notice of even the most sensible rules, and it will be anarchy - Mad Max lives!
Fwits!
If the drug rules were applied here then speeding would be shown a "blind eye"...... if 55% (thats a majority as far as I rememeber from Maths 101) ignore the posted limit, then the posted limit is WRONG!!! Simple.
If they keep this up (and I am sure that they will), eventually no-one will take any notice of even the most sensible rules, and it will be anarchy - Mad Max lives!
F
wits!quote:
Another step towards anarchy on the roads.....
If the drug rules were applied here then speeding would be shown a "blind eye"...... if 55% (thats a majority as far as I rememeber from Maths 101) ignore the posted limit, then the posted limit is WRONG!!! Simple.
If they keep this up (and I am sure that they will), eventually no-one will take any notice of even the most sensible rules, and it will be anarchy - Mad Max lives!
Absolutely right, dropping the speed limit on country roads would just make people ignore them everywhere else. That 1mph b*ll*cks where the hell does a figure like that come from?
quote:
quote:
Tests have shown that a 1mph reduction in average speed results in a 5 per cent reduction in crashes.
Take this to the logical conclusion and if we reduced the speed limit by 20 mph there would be no crashes! Such obvious c
Ok to take this one step further...
Using these figures if we dropped the speed limit to 30mph, we would actually start bringing previous accident victims back from the dead, at a rate of 900 per year!!!
As Spike Milligan said 87.6% of statistics are COMPLETE BOLLOX!!!! or something like that.
Cheers Dan
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff