RE: 30mph Limits - Dangerous?
Friday 8th November 2002
30mph Limits - Dangerous?
Does over use of lower limits increase accident rates?
Discussion
Absolutely bang-on.
Berkshire is showing similar examples of "30mph-limit-creep" where it seems that 2 houses on an ostensibly open, rural road now constitute a "village" and are worthy of their own '30' signs. You can actually watch people exceeding the inappropriately low limit - and then continuing at their then increased speed through the original '30' limit - which was/is appropriate.
Berkshire is showing similar examples of "30mph-limit-creep" where it seems that 2 houses on an ostensibly open, rural road now constitute a "village" and are worthy of their own '30' signs. You can actually watch people exceeding the inappropriately low limit - and then continuing at their then increased speed through the original '30' limit - which was/is appropriate.
I live just outside Henley On Thames and, therefore, regularly travel into the nearby town of Reading. The main road between Henley and Reading used to be a safe and enjoyable road to travel down, probably my favorite road...until now.
The council decided it was 'PC' to put a 30mph limit on this fast road and now it is horribly dangerous. All it has achieved is angry drivers, excesive speed differentials and silly overtaking. There has already been one death from a head on collision.
What does it take before the government realises that it isnt speed in itself that causes accidents.
The council decided it was 'PC' to put a 30mph limit on this fast road and now it is horribly dangerous. All it has achieved is angry drivers, excesive speed differentials and silly overtaking. There has already been one death from a head on collision.
What does it take before the government realises that it isnt speed in itself that causes accidents.
[quote
What does it take before the government realises that it isnt speed in itself that causes accidents.
TRL 421 is an independent research study in the UK that showed exactly that - the faster vehicles travel, the more accidents there are.
When are PH readers going to realise this?!?!
What does it take before the government realises that it isnt speed in itself that causes accidents.
TRL 421 is an independent research study in the UK that showed exactly that - the faster vehicles travel, the more accidents there are.
When are PH readers going to realise this?!?!
But just to reply to the subject line - yes of course, speed limits must be genuine and if there are reasons for low limits that aren't obvious they should be advertised on road signs - like 'Accident Blackspot - Take Care' or something.
Otherwise the validity of all other limits come into question.
There are 20 mph limits yards from where I live, policed by a gatso.
But its a busy residential road passing several schools. The local papers are full of nothing but praise.
Otherwise the validity of all other limits come into question.
There are 20 mph limits yards from where I live, policed by a gatso.
But its a busy residential road passing several schools. The local papers are full of nothing but praise.
spnracing said:TRL 421 is an independent research study in the UK that showed exactly that - the faster vehicles travel, the more accidents there are.
When are PH readers going to realise this?!?!
Statistics...
That should make motorways the most dangerous roads then, which they're not.
Bad driving causes accidents. Period.
PetrolTed said:
Statistics...
That should make motorways the most dangerous roads then, which they're not.
Bad driving causes accidents. Period.
Well said Ted.
What has probably been missed out is a comparison of the types of roads etc.
A twisty road with lots of hazards will have a marked increase of accidents if the speed cars travel along it increase by say 20mph. A motorway would probably have a negligible increase.
"spnracing" - you mention that TRL 421 are independent. Exactly how independent are they? Are they as "independent as Transport 2000, i.e. made up from Rail and Bus companies AND whom exactly paid for this report to be commissioned in the first place.
After all - everybody has got their price!
After all - everybody has got their price!
spnracing said:
TRL 421 is an independent research study in the UK that showed exactly that - the faster vehicles travel, the more accidents there are.
When are PH readers going to realise this?!?!
SPN,
TRL is a government funded body, and produces many reports including TRL323 which shows about 7% of accidents are caused by speed. Following the 'one third' claim, TRL have been subjected to pressure to 'review' the findings to support the one-third lie.
So accident causes like 'following too close' become cayegorised as 'speeding'.
TRL421 is a *theoretical* study of accident causation, including speed as a factor, but is *highly simplistic*, assuming many factors remain constant if you slow down, and therefore have less accidents. This conveniently ignores many other human factors, such as risk compensation, boredom, etc, and is also contradicted by the 85th percentile evidence - accidents can increase if a speed limit is too slow.
ISTR that 421 is the basis for the 'drop your speed by 1mph, drop accidents by 5%' claim - so if you drive at 20 instead of 40, there would be no accidents at all. Hmm.
I know of several people who routinely ignore these artificially imposed 30 & 40's. Just keep on doing the NSL. Watch for more and more of this. We all try to be careful round schools & such like, but some of these limits are taking the "P". One of my favourite out-in-the-sticks thrashs has a 40 limit for about 5 miles. I totally ignore this as it is a) not dangerous to do 60, and b) you won't get caught on it. No way will people comply with idiotic laws. And c) it used to be NSL all the way, but now Suffolk council have got stroppy about it... don't see any less accidents though. Funny eh?
C
C
An example of stupid speed limits near me:- the Cat & Fiddle road between Macclesfield and Buxton has been reduced to a 50 zone for most of it's length, despite being a good, wide road. There are occasional twisty bits that could catch out a first timer, but they're mostly highlighted. And yet all the very narrow, dry stone walled, twisty, mud covered, badly surfaced side roads of it maintain their NSL status 
Statistics...
That should make motorways the most dangerous roads then, which they're not.
Bad driving causes accidents. Period.
Totally disagree.
There are no pedestrians on Motorways at all. The vast majority of Britains road network is NOT motorway. Yet many people still die in Motorway crashes.
Driving too fast for the prevailing conditions IS bad driving.
gilese said: I live in one such village. The 30mph limit has been set due to poor road access view, to keep noice down etc. Most drivers however do not see the potential dangers of the road and regularly excessively speed. The problem is selfishness and a lack of perception.
EXACTLY.
How does the passer by KNOW that a road is not dangerous? Even locals don't often hear about what happens on a day to day basis.
The local council do and they more often than not set the limits accordingly.
"The local council do.... and they more often than not set the limits accordingly."
That shows an optimistic level of faith at best. We all know that it's easy to point to an exception to any stated rule. The sheer number of examples that can be highlighted (here) of where exactly the opposite is true cannot be ignored though.
In Berkshire, the road south of Hurst has very recently had it's NSL replaced by extended 30 then 40 limits. I've never heard of there being an accident there and have lived 3 miles away for 6 years.
On the outskirts of Binfield (2 miles away) there is a road junction where accidents have occurred on a regular basis for years (last one being 2 days ago)and the NSL applies. Wokingham District Council presides over both stretches of road. The only difference is that the Hurst stretch, because of a few properties on one side of the road, probably now counts as "village".
Yet many people still die in Motorway crashes.
Are you a plant by T2k?
Motorways are statistically the safest roads in the UK, granted - when it does go wrong it is more than likely worse, however people still die getting out of bed in the morning, does that mean we have to impose a getting out of bed limit?
It's common sense that IF it all goes wrong, and the rate of velocity is high - then more stresses are imposed on the body which could lead to death, yes - however - you can't define speed as THE factor in motorway accidents.
Accidents happen, everyone knows that - but through better education and more stringent checks of vehicular safety - this risk CAN be negated.
The road system in the UK at present is so bad, that during peak hours you're doing well to maintain the 70mph speed limit, let alone exceed it for any sustained period of time, yet those self same roads can be safely travelled at 100mph+ when the conditions allow.
An accident in peak time, even if the rate of velocity on the road averages about 55mph will stand a very much HIGHER chance of death or serious injury due to the domino effect of people not being able to stop in time, and therefore ploughing into already stationary vehicles (this is the education of drivers etc that needs upping)
An accident at say 3am in which one car has a blowout or similar at 100mph+ stands a chance of being fatal, however there are a lot of variables that come into play (car safety, driver ability etc) which still all negate speed as being THE factor involved.
A blow out at 70 is still ferocious, I've had the unfortunate experience of a tyre blowing at 70mph and it's was hard enough to keep the car in the correct lane, so unless everyone was going to drive at <30mph on major arterial routes, there WILL always be deaths/major injuries on the road.
Has anyone ever done a correlation between the number of accidents, and the number of cars on the road... afterall its all very well banging on about increased numbers of fatal accidents, but what happens if you factor in the increased numbers of cars on the road.. I'll wager the figure is suprising ?
The point here is that if all the limits are dropped to 20mph people will have to set out at 5am to travel 10miles to work to get there for 9. This is why people speed. Time is money. If there are no 'appropriate' i.e. straight dual carriageway = NSL then people will not obey stupid limits. It is usually the people with the Speed kills and Keep Back stickers who are up my butt and overtaking me....
Also, everyone smokes drugs according to Mr Paddock, so they cannot enforce drugs, and they concentrate on harsher drugs..... Soooo, everyone speeds, but why do they still enforce speed limits with the veracity of a pit bull grabbing a steak? Why not concentrate on Drink/Drug users, people who have no idea what that white line is in the road there as they go round a nice blind bend, people who think that a red traffic light means drive though slowly etc.....
Also, everyone smokes drugs according to Mr Paddock, so they cannot enforce drugs, and they concentrate on harsher drugs..... Soooo, everyone speeds, but why do they still enforce speed limits with the veracity of a pit bull grabbing a steak? Why not concentrate on Drink/Drug users, people who have no idea what that white line is in the road there as they go round a nice blind bend, people who think that a red traffic light means drive though slowly etc.....
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff