Speeding in a thirty limit

[Pin-seeker]

It's ok, but I haven't made any claims just curious to those that are saying something but have no proof to back it up.



Woah there fella! I don't think anyone is "sniggering" about a child being killed so maybe wind your neck in on that score. I am merely astounded that you NEVER stray above the speed limit at ANY time for whatever reason and remember that there are times when you can break the speed limit and no children will die or even puppy dogs. But as you say each top their own (pomposity).

And you still haven't answered my question about the proof regarding the extra risk when you increase the speed limit on a motorway. Are you really a politician?

Careful mate,you could end up with an infraction for Trolling/fanning the flames.

 

[Foxholer]

Do you have any proof of the extra risk associated with increasing the speed limits on the motorways though?

Surely you know that's impossible to quantify until it actually happens!

But RAC Foundation director Professor Stephen Glaister said: 'there is (also) likely to be a slight increase in casualties'. And he's probably as good an authority as anyone!

 

[MadAdey]

I am loosing track a bit with the arguement that is going on. I am really struggling to see the argument and who is backing what...lol at the end of the day statistics are a tool that can be used by anyone to justify a point.

Regarding dropping the limit to 20, think about this. By the way, I am talking about Mr average, in an average car, in average conditions, on an average road surface.
Would it give a driver more time to react and either avoid or stop?
Is getting hit at 20 less likely to kill or cause some kind of permanent injury you than being hit at 30?
When someone walks into the road in front of you, would it give them a split second longer to get out of the way?

If you answer yes to any of them, then you must agree that driving at slower speeds puts people at a lower risk.

 

[chris661]

Surely you know that's impossible to quantify until it actually happens!

But RAC Foundation director Professor Stephen Glaister said: 'there is (also) likely to be a slight increase in casualties'. And he's probably as good an authority as anyone!

Yes but as it was being bandied about as gospel I had (wrongly) assumed that there was some data regarding it. Hey ho.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

It's ok, but I haven't made any claims just curious to those that are saying something but have no proof to back it up.



Woah there fella! I don't think anyone is "sniggering" about a child being killed so maybe wind your neck in on that score. I am merely astounded that you NEVER stray above the speed limit at ANY time for whatever reason and remember that there are times when you can break the speed limit and no children will die or even puppy dogs. But as you say each top their own (pomposity).

And you still haven't answered my question about the proof regarding the extra risk when you increase the speed limit on a motorway. Are you really a politician?

Again i stick to the speed limit for the reasons stated - i know that may shock you but i hope im not the only person who does and im not sure what the problem is with someone sticking to the speed limit

Plenty of articles and claims on google - just google speed limit increase on Motorways

And then i expect i can find on there the proof to counter my claim :thup:

 

[chris661]

Again i stick to the speed limit for the reasons stated - i know that may shock you but i hope im not the only person who does and im not sure what the problem is with someone sticking to the speed limit

Plenty of articles and claims on google - just google speed limit increase on Motorways

And then i expect i can find on there the proof to counter my claim :thup:

As this is my last post on this subject I am leaving it with this.

Your apology for insinuating I was laughing at children dying is accepted. Or maybe not seen as you haven't actually done it. :angry:

 

[Phil2511]

so you are making statements and when queried you say google it, thats not exactly how you prove a point lol

 

[Deleted member 15344]

As this is my last post on this subject I am leaving it with this.

Your apology for insinuating I was laughing at children dying is accepted. Or maybe not seen as you haven't actually done it. :angry:

i gave my reasons for me not speeding and you sneered at me in your post about me not speeding - going on about me never getting a speeding ticket - when again i stated that it was for safety reasons after seeing a friends child die in front of me. Will i apologise for me beliefs - not in a millions years

if people want to sneer away about me driving at the correct limit then knock yourself out if it makes people feel superior.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

so you are making statements and when queried you say google it, thats not exactly how you prove a point lol

I posted numerous articles throughout the whole thread - i believe that increase in speed on a motorway increases the risk - have read articles that agree with that.

Ill wait for someone to disprove it now.

 

[Foxholer]

I am loosing track a bit with the arguement that is going on. I am really struggling to see the argument and who is backing what...lol at the end of the day statistics are a tool that can be used by anyone to justify a point.

Regarding dropping the limit to 20, think about this. By the way, I am talking about Mr average, in an average car, in average conditions, on an average road surface.
Would it give a driver more time to react and either avoid or stop?
Is getting hit at 20 less likely to kill or cause some kind of permanent injury you than being hit at 30?
When someone walks into the road in front of you, would it give them a split second longer to get out of the way?

If you answer yes to any of them, then you must agree that driving at slower speeds puts people at a lower risk.

I believe I've already pointed out, with references, that, for this task, simply reducing the limit doesn't work - it doesn't actually reduce the average speed significantly! Traffic Calming measures are the best methods to actually reduce speeds - with or without reduced speed limits.

 

[Phil2511]

strange then that the number of deaths PTK for france(20.2) on motorways is almost 1/2 the uk(35.9) yet their motorway speed limit is 85mph based on results from a study between 2000-2009

just thought i would use the closest country to uk

 

[Ethan]

So now we know that Phil was witness to a kid getting knocked down, and this has converted him to being an ardent believer in speed limits.

OK, so a traumatic event can often precipitate change of behaviour, but sometimes that change is proportionate and sometimes it isn't. In Phil's case, the focus is now entirely on the speed limit, 29 in a 30 zone is good, 31 is bad etc. Although this accident took place in a residential area, he has also extended the same logic to roads with other speed limits. He has assumed that the speed limits, which fall at conveniently round numbers represent some sort of scientifically determined inflection point between safe and dangerous driving. This is false, they are simply points on a continuum which have been chosen somewhat arbitrarily. It is obvious that the higher the speed of a collision, the more energy which will be exchanged and damage caused. Obviously. But that is very different from knowing what the 'correct' lints are. In truth, everyone knows that the 'safe' speed limit varies with driving conditions, time of day, visibility, road conditions, weather etc. Most of the speed limits in force today were introduced in the 1960s or before. The 70mph limit came in 1967, after much political lobbying and against the advice of the RAC. Back then, common cars were the Ford Anglia (max speed 74, 0-60 in 27 secs), The Mini Mark I (max speed 73, 0-60 27 secs) and the Austin 1100, a relative speed demon at 80mph and 0-60 in 19.7 secs. All of these had drum brakes, skinny tyres (5.5 x 12, typically) and crude suspension compared to today's cars, and didn't have much of the design intended to reduce pedestrian injury. Some of the other speed limits, such as the 30mph limit, date from the 1930s.

But this obsession with the limit also ignores, of fails to understand, some other issues. all of these other issues are dismissed with an unthinking knee jerk response of 'just follow the speed limit'. This is being in denial. It is obvious and unarguable that if a moron in a slow car causes a tailback, then the risk of accident in that tailback and when it is released, increases. In this case, slow driving causes accidents, but the accidents may not actually involve the slow car. The AA agrees with this point. Phil is keen to cite stats and laws from around the world. Some of these include minimum speeds for obvious reasons, but he is yet to acknowledge these.

But if he was really concerned with avoiding accident/injury, then surely the better thing would be to abandon the car and use the train/bus/bicycle/Shank's mare.

 

[USER1999]

I clearly deserve to have been pinged or speeding, as I normally view the eta given by my sat nav as the longest a journey should take. I often beat it by at least an hour or so.

Back to my first post, it's quite amazing I managed to get pinged at all, as I was only driving 14 miles, and had left myself one and a half hours to complete it. It took 1 hour 25. It was the only time I got above walking speed the whole trip!

 

[triple_bogey]

But if he was really concerned with avoiding accident/injury, then surely the better thing would be to abandon the car and use the train/bus/bicycle/Shank's mare.

Exactly, that would be the best option for him. Does he qualify for free transport passes yet? :thup:

Anyone can die from head trauma even from 10-15 mph impacts. So don't believe that a 20mph limit will save you.

 

[MadAdey]

I believe I've already pointed out, with references, that, for this task, simply reducing the limit doesn't work - it doesn't actually reduce the average speed significantly! Traffic Calming measures are the best methods to actually reduce speeds - with or without reduced speed limits.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that reducing speed limits alone will not reduce accidents. All that does is reduce the damage inflicted in an accident. Getting people to learn how to drive would be a great start too. I could sit here all day and comment on some of the amazing things I have seen idiots do on the roads like most can.

SO to improve the safety of our roads we need to:

Reduce speed limits in urban areas - they are taking speed limits down to 20 in certain areas
Teach people how to actually drive in a safe manner - god knows how we do that
Put in traffic calming measures to slow people down - speed humps, chicanes etc are already being used to good effect
Make sure that everyone drives a car that is fit for the road - we have MOT's for that
Keep roads properly maintained - they do not do that in a lot of ares.
Introduce minimum speed limits - would be a great idea

So, some of the things needed are being taken care off. Some of them you can't do anything about like the people behind the wheel. But others are possible to sort IMO.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

So now we know that Phil was witness to a kid getting knocked down, and this has converted him to being an ardent believer in speed limits.

OK, so a traumatic event can often precipitate change of behaviour, but sometimes that change is proportionate and sometimes it isn't. In Phil's case, the focus is now entirely on the speed limit, 29 in a 30 zone is good, 31 is bad etc. Although this accident took place in a residential area, he has also extended the same logic to roads with other speed limits. He has assumed that the speed limits, which fall at conveniently round numbers represent some sort of scientifically determined inflection point between safe and dangerous driving. This is false, they are simply points on a continuum which have been chosen somewhat arbitrarily. It is obvious that the higher the speed of a collision, the more energy which will be exchanged and damage caused. Obviously. But that is very different from knowing what the 'correct' lints are. In truth, everyone knows that the 'safe' speed limit varies with driving conditions, time of day, visibility, road conditions, weather etc. Most of the speed limits in force today were introduced in the 1960s or before. The 70mph limit came in 1967, after much political lobbying and against the advice of the RAC. Back then, common cars were the Ford Anglia (max speed 74, 0-60 in 27 secs), The Mini Mark I (max speed 73, 0-60 27 secs) and the Austin 1100, a relative speed demon at 80mph and 0-60 in 19.7 secs. All of these had drum brakes, skinny tyres (5.5 x 12, typically) and crude suspension compared to today's cars, and didn't have much of the design intended to reduce pedestrian injury. Some of the other speed limits, such as the 30mph limit, date from the 1930s.

But this obsession with the limit also ignores, of fails to understand, some other issues. all of these other issues are dismissed with an unthinking knee jerk response of 'just follow the speed limit'. This is being in denial. It is obvious and unarguable that if a moron in a slow car causes a tailback, then the risk of accident in that tailback and when it is released, increases. In this case, slow driving causes accidents, but the accidents may not actually involve the slow car. The AA agrees with this point. Phil is keen to cite stats and laws from around the world. Some of these include minimum speeds for obvious reasons, but he is yet to acknowledge these.

But if he was really concerned with avoiding accident/injury, then surely the better thing would be to abandon the car and use the train/bus/bicycle/Shank's mare.

I do believe i have address the slow driver issue and have also said yes they do cause accidents themselves

I also dont believe i have suggested that people pootle along at 50 mph or 30mph on a motorway because that itself causes problems - also people doing 50mph in the middle of the road

Same with people doing 30mph on a 60mph road will cause problems and tailbacks

i would also ask how many tailbacks you see in housing estates because someone is driving too slow -

If someone is driving at the speed limit and causing a tailback then who is causing the problem ? The guy sticking to the limit - or the people behind him dying to get past because they want not need to get somewhere quicker.

You also get the moron who whilst you are driving at the speed limit is right up your backside , you also get the moron who isnt happy with someone doing the speed limit he must overtake where there is danger

People dont need to go above the speed limit - unless you can tell me a good enough reason why you "need" to go above the speed limit.

My witnessing my friends daughter being killed tuned me into a more aware drive i believe and made me want to ensure i was as safe as i could possibly be on the road - when i drive through residential areas im quite happy to drive a little bit slower to ensure that if a child did run out then i give them the best chance possible to survive if i didnt react in time or they were too close. I would rather get home safe with no incidents than get home a couple mins early but put people at extra risk.

I dont pootle along a roads at 30 mph when the limit is 60 , i dont hog the middle lane driving at 50 mph on a motorway nor do i do any other acts that i think might put myself and other drivers at risk.

People will never be able to cover every single possible event that "could" but when it comes to our safety then i believe there our people out there far more qualified than us who come up with there desicions on road safety.

But i will ask the question again - is there ever any occasion when anyone bar emergency services "needs" to break the speed limit set out by our governing laws.

 

[triple_bogey]

When was you're last speeding fine/ticket?

 

[Foxholer]

Here is a little story for you

About 8 years ago I was walking to my mates through a residential area which was still a 30 -

A little girl about 100 yards in front of me ran out into the road chasing her dog - she was 7

She got hit by a car doing 30mph - the driver reacted and skidded but still hit her , we all tried our best at the scene but it was clear she had a head injury as well as legs being broken

Unfortunately the little girl passed away - it was my mates little girl.

I had to go to the coroners as witness and listened to all the reports

The driver wasn't breaking the speed limit but they worked out that he hit the car at 24 mph

And that she died of a brain trauma because the force of the collision through her onto the floor where she hit her head.

The police gave a report that the driver reacted normally around a second and conditions were good on the road

They also did a study that if the driver was doing 20mph there was a 80% chance that she would have survived because the collision speed would have been well under 10mph - maybe not even hitting the poor girl

I sat there and watched the driver face who was in bits - he was doing the speed limit but still killed someone

They did a study of that road and within 3 years they introduced a 20mph as well as speed bumps on corners and a chicane.

Thankfully since then no one has been killed - a person has been hit by a car but the car was doing the correct speed limit and he survived with a badly bruise leg and broken ribs

I have no doubt if the limit was 20 mph my mates little girl would be getting ready to do GSCE's right now

So I don't care about any reports you want to post to try and prove a point to ensure you make sure everyone is wrong I sat there and listened to a coroner and other state that a little girl would be alive now if the speed limit was 20mph

So if reducing the speed limit in urban and residential areas saves just one child's life then it has my full backing because I have seen the devastation caused by someone getting knocked over

Now you can abrasive tell me I'm wrong - but that will just show your character or you can act a bit better and say "sorry I see your point but I will have to disagree with some points" you might get a better response

Enjoy your day

A sad story, that I missed earlier this morning.

However, it doesn't alter change any facts - only explains at least part of your motivation. And there's an (abrasive) argument that if it took such a catastrophic event to make you realise the danger of speed, then you were an irresponsible Driver in the first place!

I too have experienced the trauma of seeing (the results of) RTA deaths (several of times in fact, a couple of whom I knew/were related to), so no need to feel the need to use emotional blackmail!

I'm not going to stop pointing out when you are factually wrong - as opposed to simply having a different opinion - just because you consider it 'abrasive'. If you are wrong, you are wrong. That's your problem, not mine!

Good to see that there have been no further incidents. Was the change to the road a recommendation by the Coroner? And were there any other incidents in the 3 years between that tragedy and the change to the road? And in a similar period before the incident?

And, admittedly somewhat abrasive, banning children from playing with dogs could well have prevented the tragedy too! And just as (in)effective as simply changing the speed limit imo.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

When was you're last speeding fine/ticket?

over a decade a go in Cyprus

 

[JustOne]

And, admittedly somewhat abrasive, banning children from playing with dogs could well have prevented the tragedy too! And just as (in)effective as simply changing the speed limit imo.

I agree........ 7yr old + dog + road = accident.

If I was doing under the speed limit and a child ran out in front of me I wouldn't feel bad, it's NOT my fault if someone decides to run out into the road.

I had someone try to commit suicide in front of my car once by diving (yes literally like you would into a swimming pool) into the road, I was doing 30mph and managed to stop milliseconds before his head went under the wheel. He got up and walked away as I got out of the car to see if he was alright. 2 weeks later he succeeded in his quest, dived in front of a woman driver!!! LOLOL. Probably went down as a RTA STATISTIC when really there was no driver at fault whatsoever.

I had 2 people (separate incidents) step in front of my car about 6 weeks ago (posted here on the forum somewhere) luckily I missed them both..... one was approx 4yrs old and seeing her little eyes peering at me over the front of the bonnet was weird. Hopefully her MUM won't let go of her hand again in a hurry.