Forum menu
Crikey, I know what its like to lose someone in a car crash my Dad died in a crash when I was 17.
I simply don't believe that by having a lower speed limit or a speed camera on the road where he crashed that he'd be here now.
Speed cameras are a tax on he stupid true, but they penalise the majority because of a minority,
I drive 30-40k a year and have done for the last 15 years, I haven't been stopped by the police ever, I've never got any points. I've tried to improve my skills and am prepared to take responsibility for my actions when I sit behind the wheel. I do not speed as a rule but there have been times when I've exceeded the NSL. I don't believe that reducing the NSL on single carriage-way roads will have a dramatic impact on road safety. This can only come from better training and a change in attitudes towards other forms of transport.
There are many other large numbers of deaths each year from groups that could be saved for more easily and for less money, stats for 2007 - 15k from Mental & behavioral disorders...
Improving the health of the nation, by getting people out of their cars to walk or cycle will benefit more people and RTA stats then a mandatory 50 limit.
Speed cameras are a tax on he stupid true, but they penalise the majority because of a minority,
How do you work that out? cos the majority are too stupid to see cameras? 'cos the majority speed and thus break the law?
I find all the bleating on here about speed cameras laughable - they are not a tax nor a revenue raising device - they are a way of catching lawbreakers.
Now don't get me wrong - I enjoy speeding as much as many others and almost certainly have speeded far more than most on here - but if / when I get caught I don't bleat about the unfairness of it. You know what the speed limit is, you know what the penalty for speeding is. If you can't do the time don't do the crime!
they penalise the majority because of a minority
I actually dont agree with that I think the majority break the speed limit but are too stupid to realise how dangerous and over estimate their driving ability.
I think you're stupid to get caught by a camera as you're obivously paying attention to what's going on outside the window, they're big things with bright yellow stickers on them... if you can't see a camera how can you say you'd stop for a kiddie in the road
WTF. So yet again the stupid government are relying on legislation and cameras to solve an issue that really requires better training and traffic police.
I will barely get out of 4th gear, so will use more fuel on roads perfectly safe to drive at 60 or more.
Regarding the earlier argument about [i]"put a big spike on the steering wheel and everyone will drive safer"[/i].
I think that was suggested by John Adams in his book "Risk" and the point was that it would [u]not[/u] reduce the number of accidents. It would just reduce the speed everyone drove at.
He used it to illustrate the concept of risk compensation. His point was that every "safety" improvement tends to actually get swallowed up as a performance improvement (i.e. people feel safer so they drive faster). There is a level of risk which is generally accepted and it's very hard to get away from that.
Er i cant be arsed reading all the tosh on here but it sounds like a cash cow to me.
Before you know it private companies will be given the right to issue speeding tickets, just like parking tickets and then we will all be screwed, except those with james bond style revolving number plates.
Oh and the owner of this private cash cow company is probably sat with his dick up a lords ass right about now!
Rant over
Should make this redundant 😕
[img] 
[/img]
[i]Before you know it private companies will be given the right to issue speeding tickets, just like parking tickets and then we will all be screwed, except those with james bond style revolving number plates.[/i]
Even those of us who don't speed?
[i]Oh and the owner of this private cash cow company is probably sat with his dick up a lords ass right about now![/i]
Sitting. If you're going to rant (feebly), learn English first.
More money for policing offences other than speeding. Thats policing, requiring police officers rather than a yellow box that takes pictures of a small stretch of road occasionally.
Fast cars are dead. R.I.P. It'll do us all good in the long run. (Carbon emissions hat on).
Solamanda.."I will barely get out of 4th gear, so will use more fuel on roads" - Rubbish.
Actually there is a whole new sport here. It's MPG. Since I got a ticket, and accepted that driving extremely carefully is the only way to go. There is a whole new challenge. You can discover a completely unexplored layer of frustration to vent off at when someone pushes up your arse, whilst you ignore them and accelerate pitifully slowly from 30MPH in 5th. People cornering too slowly and and anything else which makes you touch the brakes will be sworn at. Draughting lorries on the motorway can raise plenty of adrenaline, and is equally as dangerous as driving at 75MPH on a country road.
Driving slowly needn't be dull.
Meanwhile, long live fast bikes, ride as hard as you like - and feel smug.
Solamanda.."I will barely get out of 4th gear, so will use more fuel on roads" - Rubbish.
My car won't comfortably sit in 5th up moderate hills at just 50mph but it's fine at 60.
Blah blah blah...I hate cars and live in the city...blah blah blah
I got bored reading this after the first page so sorry if anyone else has come along with a sensible arguement to this.
I was going to quote some stats linking speed with accidents but since you've all made your minds up already - why bother.
Ever driven up the M74 north of penrith to glasgow at 70mph? interesting.
Down my end of the A316 we have those average speed cameras set at 30mph. Policing what? Cones, more cones, even more cones and... another load of cones. Everybody seems to be taking smaller local roads as they can get there (wherever that is) more quickly. People are annoyed and as soon as the restriction ends and you're on the M3 it seems nobody drives at less than 90mph. I was doing 70 the other day (maybe just under) and was overtaken as if I were a stationary object. Police? What Police? Cameras were treated as a joke. Floor the accelerator, drive at any speed you want/can, see a camera, slam on the brake, drive under the current limit, floor the accelerator again. Repeat till the end of your journey.
50mph won't change anything if no Police in patrol cars or on superfast motorcycles are about. We all break the rule, don't we? Otherwise how would you know if your car can top a tonne?
it's odd, under most circumstances this forum seems to think "its a privelage to drive not a right"
But try to enforce that with speed cameras and suddenly its your right to do 70 on a B-road?
And as for the speed only causes a small number of accidents. 28% of road fatalities are the result of excessive speed.
35% of fatal accidents were the result of "loss of controll" which presumably wouldn't happen if you were at a sensible speed (i.e. taking a hairpin bend on a UC road at 59mph may not be sensible).
28% of road fatalities are the result of excessive speed.
what percentage of these are within existing 30/40/50 speed limit zones.
Can the remaining be broken down into Motorway, A road and B roads?
35% of fatal accidents were the result of "loss of controll" which presumably wouldn't happen if you were at a sensible speed (i.e. taking a hairpin bend on a UC road at 59mph may not be sensible).
That's a bit of a sweeping generalisation - loss of control can be a rseult a wide range of things of which speed would only be a tiny fraction.
Statistics can be used to prove anything.
It's just moving us another step closer to a nice friendly totalitarian regime. Have a nice day now.
Has this been reported anywhere else other than in The Times?
[i]It's just moving us another step closer to a nice friendly totalitarian regime. Have a nice day now. [/i]
Given that the roads already have speed limits, i don't quite see how either making the limit higher or lower moves us any closer to a totalitarian regime.
Bring back the man walking in front with a red flag, it's the way forward!
Seriously though, I don't see how making overtaking more likely is going to contribute to safety.
Mike, there's a couple of links here -
[url] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rural-speed-limits-may-be-reduced-to-50mph-1640157.html [/url]
[url] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/4953745/Speed-limit-on-rural-roads-to-be-cut-to-50mph.html [/url]
Interestingly it sounds like some sort of policy may already exist to do this.
[url]www.eastherts.gov.uk/media/word/h/l/Agenda_item_7_-_A120_Standon_Hill_Revision3Final.doc[/url]
didn't alastair darling say on top gear that the 'profit' from speed cameras was about the same as what simon cowell pays in income tax per year? and if thats so, its bugger all. hardly a cash-cow...
i'd have thought that having 50mph speeds on motorways during road works was because there is the possibility that throughout the time there are road works, the location of the cones may change, as the works evolve? therefore changing the speed to match each stage of the road works would just cause more confusion, esp on long term road works.
dunno if i explained that properly.
as for the new speed limit and cameras, i dunno, looks expensive, and seems a little daft, but i don't drive, so i don't care.
oh, and as TJ said (iirc) people shouldn't complain when they get caught speeding - fines ARE a tax on the stupid. you know when you're doing it...
remember, you have a license to drive, NOT a right.
Ever driven up the M74 north of penrith to glasgow at 70mph? interesting.
Not sure I understand your point - is there some issue with driving that slowly along the M74?
28% of road fatalities are the result of excessive speed.
Total rubbish. For a start, very definitely not the "result of" speed - maybe speed is a factor, but it's nowhere near 28% it's even a factor in according to the police's own stats. Where exactly did you pluck that figure from, and what evidence is there for it?
28% of road fatalities are the result of excessive speed.
30mph can be excessive on a motorway if its covered in snow. 'Excessive speed' is a vague term when used to justify traffic policing without the use of traffic police, just the same as the term KSI (Killed or Serious Injured).
BTW, what percentage of that 28% also involve drink, drugs or already having broken some other law (stolen car then pursuit, etc)?
those numbers are the ones ont he DfT website (google to find the report).
Presumably "loss of controll" covers thing slike over enthusiastic cornering, driving too quick in the wet, etc etc, i.e. stuf that wouldn't happen at lower speeds.
Does 'lower speeds' refer to speeds lower than the speed limit or speeds suitable for the conditions?
those numbers are the ones ont he DfT website (google to find the report).
Maybe you could help me out, given you're the one quoting the number, and presumably got it from somewhere? Googled and didn't find anything. Though if it's what I suspect, it will be a figure made up by adding in factors which aren't actually excessive speed, but they would like to think might be, just as you are...
Presumably "loss of controll" covers thing slike over enthusiastic cornering, driving too quick in the wet, etc etc, i.e. stuf that wouldn't happen at lower speeds.
Don't you think if it really was excessive speed they'd have said so, given they had that as an option?
Presumably "loss of controll" covers thing slike over enthusiastic cornering, driving too quick in the wet, etc etc, i.e. stuf that wouldn't happen at lower speeds.
All things that have nothing to do with the speed limit.
Unless you are advocating driving at the same speed at all times. Which would explain the people who you see doing 40mph all the way over the snake despite the 50 signs then carrying on at 40mph in Glossop despite the 30 signs.
A better law would be to ban sat navs IMHO - the modern day equivalent of the flat cap, when you see the lit up screen in the car in front you just know they aren't looking where they are going never mind having the faintest inkling what their mirrors are for.
Speed alone is not a killer, inappropriate speed is the problem. If speed was the problem and anyone was serious about the issue, vehicle power/speed would be limited by law.
have any original points of view been added to this since about post 10? i can't be arsed to read it all?
Right, how about better training instead? When I did my licence I never needed to know how to drive on a motorway, after dark or when it's seriously wet. My mate had his test cancelled as it rained heavily on the day. He still drives his Polo on the A40 from London westwards at the maximum speed of 40mph as he's too scared to go higher. Safe driver?
Not really Jam bo. It mainly boils down to two opinions.
"Cars are evil, m'kay."
and
"No their not."
It's actually a pity this is necessary - I've always interpreted the NSL roads as "make your own mind up" and I don't feel any pressure to do 60 if it's not comfortable. To pick the extreme ends of the spectrum on roads that I know - the "missing link" at Coatbridge on the M8 between Edinburgh and Glasgow is officially an A-road and has the NSL - 70+mph no bother there in good conditions. At the other end of the scale - the mad singletrack road along Loch Arkaig in the West Highlands has the NSL - but you would be quite lucky to survive doing 25mph on it. Between those extremes, the same thought process should always apply - but we all know that it doesn't and people will try to reach the limit regardless...
IMHO excessive use of speed limits only goes to reinforce the idea that you don't actually have to make your own mind up.
[img] 
[/img]
Known to most motorcyclists as the GLF* sign
*go like ****
I know Ill get shot down for even suggesting this point of view but if the police stopped putting their mobile speed traps on motorways and concentrated on the A roads they wouldn't need to buy so many new cameras.
What is the point of enforcing a random figure (70mph) that was set in the 1960's when your average car could only just go that fast? My car can and does safely cruise at 90mph on quiet motorways and having driven a similar car on two lane German Autobahns can safely cruise at about 110mph (dependant on traffic and weather conditions obviously). It is all about driving apropriatlely to the conditions. Slapping a 50mph speed limit on a perfectly straight and wide A road will just encourage overtaking and ignoring of the Law. Sticking a 50mph speed limit on a very bendy narrow road with poor visability will make some of our less intelligent drivers think it's safe to drive round a hair-pin bend at 50 mph.
Ultimately the government will do what it wants and all you non-drivers will be happy.
Swello - Member
At the other end of the scale - the mad singletrack road along Loch Arkaig in the West Highlands has the NSL - but you would be quite lucky to survive doing 25mph on it.
Or even hold in your breakfast, eh?
Slapping a 50mph speed limit on a perfectly straight and wide A road will just encourage overtaking and ignoring of the Law.
That's why those roads would still be limited to 60.
Ultimately the government will do what it wants
The government will do what it can get away with, while keeping/getting the votes of key voters in marginal seats. It's called democracy.
and all you non-drivers will be happy.
Why the assumption that people in favour of speed cameras and lower limits are non-drivers?
That's why those roads would still be limited to 60.
You think so? Looks like they're planning on putting enough hoops for councils to have to jump through that they won't bother.
What I love was the logic the case was presented with. The average A road user travels at 48mph, therefore a 50 limit will not affect the average user but will slow the ones who tend to drive fast.
NO.
The average user spreads their speed over a much larger range. Even if they dont speed, if you cut the higher limit off at 50 and everyone sticks at 50 max, you're still going to reduce the average speed from 48. So what is happening is the law abiding citizen is going to be forced to take even longer to get to work on perfectly safe stretches of road, and the non-law abiding will continue to drive at whatever speed they like. And I suspect the number of non-law abiding citizens will increase drastically.
Why they assume that this will reduce the risks people take is beyond me - there will simply be more people overtaking and breaking the law - people speed because they feel the road is safe to do so (rightly or wrongly) - not because there's a signpost with a target to beat.
The whole problem with government is that they apply rules that blanket treat the whole country instead of allowing people to take personal responsibility for their actions. Instead they try to wrap everyone in wool so they cant possibly hurt each other. I agree with urban speed limits, I'd even lower them in places, but rural roads should be left well alone.
The whole problem with government is that they apply rules that blanket treat the whole country instead of allowing people to take personal responsibility for their actions. Instead they try to wrap everyone in wool so they cant possibly hurt each other. I agree with urban speed limits, I'd even lower them in places, but rural roads should be left well alone.
The problem is that they can't do what really needs to be done, because of the reactions of motorists if you mess with their precious freedom to do whatever the hell they like. So, you get half-arsed measures instead, which won't really make a difference.
IMO there is no need to mess with freedoms, teach people more about car control, danger anticipation, appropriate speeds for the road surface/weather etc and you dont have to limit speeds as the driver will do the job themselves. You dont see F1 drivers, rally drivers etc etc being killed in on-road accidents, and I'm fairly sure they don't stick to 50mph on country roads.
Does anyone know whether the figures include things like stolen vehicles? I suspect they do (they'll be taken from generic stats).
teach people more about car control, danger anticipation, appropriate speeds for the road surface/weather etc
They do. When you're 17 (usually), and then you have to stick to it for an hour to get a licence.