Every year 3500 people are killed on our roads and 350,000 (that`s a third of a million) are injured. These aren`t just figures, every one of them is someones son/daughter/father/mother....... In these days of Health & Safety overkill (pun intended !) the roads are actually a dangerous place to be and around 60 million of us are on them every day, not just drivers remember.
Bearing all of the above in mind, everyone using the roads first priority should be to minimise the danger that they individually pose to each and everyone of the other 60 million, in fact they have a personal responsibility to do so.

Is there anyone out there who can disagree with any of the above and if nobody can how come so many people drive so aggressively/speed and react so negatively to any attempt to improve road safety ?

Figures :
DfT http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=230291&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=False
British Medical Journal http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=841

:1) Your first figure is wrong according to latest dft release
2) your second figure is wrong
3) your third figure is wrong; the uk's total population is 60m and it's not all on the roads by any means.
4) your post is highly loaded, to the point of trolling, whether intended or not. It gives the impression that if anyone answered your question seriously, you would reply in a very particular manner about a very particular point that isn't in the OP.
5)Therefore, until you can get your basic facts right I'm not going to answer.:P

Wrong figures ? Are we really going to get hung up on a few percent either way when they change up and down every year ? One of the reasons I always use these figures is because they`re easy to remember (they`re not that far out anyway) but I think you`re missing the essential point.

How many people in this country never go on the roads, either as a driver, a passenger , a pedestrian , a cyclist, a horse rider etc etc ? I would say none.

For reference - latest DfT analysis. (http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=230291&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=False)

While I agree with the thrust of the post (people should not drive like *tsds) - I think this line is good:

"the roads are actually a dangerous place to be and around 60 million of us are on them every day,"

Who let all the prisoners out of prison, the sick out of hospital, the old out of care homes - are they driving around in secret at night? :confused:

You're drawing a unsupported link between breaking the speed limit and road deaths/injuries.

In the national press this morning is a story about how 95% of accidents are not attributed to excess speed (and in some cases excess doesn't even mean braking the posted limit).

I'll agree that reducing road accidents and injuries would be a good thing, but if you're going to focus on speed as a means to doing that then I think you are seriously misguided.

While I agree with the thrust of the post (people should not drive like *tsds) - I think this line is good:

"the roads are actually a dangerous place to be and around 60 million of us are on them every day,"

Who let all the prisoners out of prison, the sick out of hospital, the old out of care homes - are they driving around in secret at night? :confused:

hehe - not to mention the 15 million under 17's.
There are probably something like 30 million people with driving licenses, and probably no more than 5 million cars on the roads at any one time in the uk.

hehe - not to mention the 15 million under 17's.
the roads are actually a dangerous place to be and around60 million of us are on them every day, not just drivers remember....
You've missed his point a little.... not to say that it's not flawed in other ways ;)

See this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/29/nspeed29.xml) and let us know what you think.

I'm sure a new excuse will be created to justify speed camera proliferation.

Personally I`d rather be hit by a car doing 40mph than 60mph, but each to his own I suppose.
The only objection I have to speed cameras is when the speed limit in their vicinity is unclear. There should be far more "repeater" speed limit signs and in addition my idea would be to paint it on the road so the limit is not only obvious but appears in the resulting picture taken by the camera.

Personally I`d rather be hit by a car doing 40mph than 60mph, but each to his own I suppose.

And how does a speed camera slow a car down apart from on the 20 foot stretch it covers?

Personally I`d rather be hit by a car doing 40mph than 60mph, but each to his own I suppose.

And I'd rather not be hit by one in the first place. I'd rather a good driver go fast, than a poor driver go slow.
You've picked a good day to complain about the speeding issue when, as the links on other posts show, the relation between speeding and accidents is being showed to be less of a problem than not concentrating.
And if facts and figures are shown to prove a point, it may be wise not to argue when they are proved to be wrong.

Personally I`d rather be hit by a car doing 40mph than 60mph, but each to his own I suppose.

Well stand still and i'll make sure I get you on the way past then.:hihi:

Which reminds me I really want a Bugatti Veyron.

Personally I`d rather be hit by a car doing 40mph than 60mph, but each to his own I suppose.

I'm sure everyone would agree with you, what's your point.

Do you think that speed cameras actually have a significant effect on either the average speed on roads or on how many people get hit by cars?

I'd rather that the police were around catching people who drive dangerously instead of cameras catching people safely doing 35mph.

Well, I think speed cameras are a jolly good thing

I get very bored of speeding drivers on my (residential) road which is used as a short cut. I may start hoying bricks at the worst offenders

I also get upset at the inadequates on the motorway who tailgate.

So have speed cameras worked then, do people drive slower on your road?
Or have they just been put in places where they can catch the most people rather than where they can actually do some good?

Use "average speed" cameras, hide the bleedin` things and best of all build cars which use GPS technology so they physically can`t break the speed limit. Driving would be so much less stressful......
The real point is that when drivers object to GPS speed limiters their real agenda comes out, ie they want to be able to speed. Why will they never just admit that ?

My point is I would LIKE to have speed cameras on my road.

Use "average speed" cameras, hide the bleedin` things and best of all build cars which use GPS technology so they physically can`t break the speed limit.
Driving would be so much less stressful......

I disagree, it would be much more frustrating.

It would punish people who aren't driving dangerously, whilst criminals in stolen cars would continue to be a danger and bad drivers would continue to be a danger.

Why are you obsessed with speed? It's in the national papers today, excess speed a major cause of only 5% of accidents.
Why not turn your attention to some of the major causes of accidents and address them, if you are actually interested in road safety.

Speed DOES NOT KILL.

I drive on the roads and anyone who drives on the roads knows that speeding increase the chances of an accident and it definately increases the severity of an accident. You can`t ignore the rules of physics
If GPS systems stopped every car from speeding how would the criminals/"joy" riders (same thing actually) be able to drive so dangerously ?

I drive on the roads and anyone who drives on the roads knows that speeding increase the chances of an accident and it definately increases the severity of an accident. You can`t ignore the rules of physics
If GPS systems stopped every car from speeding how would the criminals/"joy" riders (same thing actually) be able to drive so dangerously ?

Simple; there are high numbers of roads and situations where it is perfectly legal and downright stupidly dangerous to drive at the stated speed limit.

Those who are not concentrating (the largest cause of accidents, remember) will concentrate even less because they won't be thinking about speed at all.
GPS won't stop the incompetent, the drunks, the criminals (it's easy to stop the signal).
In short, it won't stop 95% of accidents.

I drive on the roads and anyone who drives on the roads knows that speeding increase the chances of an accident and it definately increases the severity of an accident. You can`t ignore the rules of physics
If GPS systems stopped every car from speeding how would the criminals/"joy" riders (same thing actually) be able to drive so dangerously ?

Are you for real?

They would still be able to be a danger because, regardless of speed, they would still be able to show complete contempt for other road users/pedestrians, and would still show scant regard for other peoples safety..

And how does a speed camera slow a car down apart from on the 20 foot stretch it covers?

Which is why they should be hidden, or linked to cover the distance between two of them. If nobody knew where the cameras were, they'd have to slow down ALL the time to avoid getting fined.

I disagree, it would be much more frustrating.

It would punish people who aren't driving dangerously, whilst criminals in stolen cars would continue to be a danger and bad drivers would continue to be a danger.

Why are you obsessed with speed? It's in the national papers today, excess speed a major cause of only 5% of accidents.
Why not turn your attention to some of the major causes of accidents and address them, if you are actually interested in road safety.

Speed DOES NOT KILL.


Er, yes it does. If you're driving badly at 30mph and hit someone, they will almost certainly survive. If you're driving badly at 40mph and hit someone, they will almost certainly die.

You would cover up the gps aerial so that it doesn't know where it is, or bypass the system entirely, or steal an old car that didn't have the new system.

I think you need to distinguish between breaking the posted limit and driving at an inappropriate speed.
The first doesn't always imply the second, nor vice versa. The first doesn't always increase the chance of an accident, although i'll accept that it does increase the severity.

Of course, since speed limits were set cars have improved by a massive amount, so the severity of accidents has been greatly reduced in general. In which case why have the national speed limits not been revised?
If it was safe to do 60 mph in a ford anglia on a dual carriegway 45 years ago, then it's safer to do so in a modern car.

It's probably also true that most pedestrian injuries occur in posted 30 limits, cameras aren't often used in these areas, it generates more revenue to put a camera on a long straight road with an inappropriate 50 mph limit.

Since speed isn't a major (or even very significant) cause of accidents, why the focus on it, it's not saving lives, it's not increasing road safety, all it is doing is distracting from the real issues that need addressing.

If GPS systems stopped every car from speeding how would the criminals/"joy" riders (same thing actually) be able to drive so dangerously ?
You can block GPS signals with a small piece of aluminium foils - high buildings and trees can also block the signal - so if the default in your wonderful system is 'no GPS = brakes on' then all sorts of problems will occur in daily use, and if the system defaults to 'no GPS = no limiter function' then a small piece of foil will defeat the system and in any case
fewer than 5% of accidents have excess speed as a main cause - so it's a sledgehammer to crack a nut, how about we address the other 95%, mostly people not looking where they're bloody well going.

Er, yes it does. If you're driving badly at 30mph and hit someone, they will almost certainly survive. If you're driving badly at 40mph and hit someone, they will almost certainly die.

You should work on your logic somemore. That's being hit by a car which kills you.

Speed isn't dangerous. Being hit by a ton of metal, that's dangerous.

perhaps if parents kept their kids off the street we could reduce accidents by in excess of 5%.
speed is irrelevant if kids are out on quads,mini motos & playing football on a HIGHWAY.

Just a point of possible interest. In my area the residents of a 30mph residential road complained to the police about speeding so in due course the police set up a radar speed trap. It resulted in 37 prosecutions — all of them residents who had complained about speeding cars!

Just a point of possible interest. In my area the residents of a 30mph residential road complained to the police about speeding so in due course the police set up a radar speed trap. It resulted in 37 prosecutions — all of them residents who had complained about speeding cars!
:hihi:
That'll be the 40mph everywhere brigade then.

I think in time that speeding will be seen as anti-social as drink driving is now. The major problem with cameras is that it takes police off the road, so all other offences are missed..the aggressive driving, the lack of indicating, the lack of attention etc. Rather than cameras, I would implement two alternatives I've seen abroad.

From America:

A 20mph limit near schools morning and afternoon that are ALWAYS patrolled by police with cameras. They are highly visible.

From Portugal

Cameras linked to traffic lights. You speed, the light 100yards down the road goes red. You don't get a ticket, you just learn that the faster you go, the longer it will take.

From Portugal

Cameras linked to traffic lights. You speed, the light 100yards down the road goes red. You don't get a ticket, you just learn that the faster you go, the longer it will take.


im sure this in action from centertainment towards darnall. a nice sedate speed almost always gets me through every set of lights on green, my "occasional" rash high speed driving always gets me a red light.

I think in time that speeding will be seen as anti-social as drink driving is now.
That was always the government's intention - hasn't happened, apart from the brainwashed, and I doubt it ever will.

Er, yes it does. If you're driving badly at 30mph and hit someone, they will almost certainly survive. If you're driving badly at 40mph and hit someone, they will almost certainly die.
And if you're not driving badly, an accident is FAR less likely.

If you're driving well at 40mph, you'll see a hazard long before you reach it, and you'll be able to stop in time.
If you're driving somewhat badly at 40mph, you'll see them when it's too late, brake and probably hit them at 10mph - their chances of survival are very high.
If you're driving very badly at 40mph, you won't see them until you hit them - they are very likely to die, and you should lose your licence for the rest of your life.

If you think you're driving well at 40mph and fail to stop in time - you weren't driving well after all.

Just a point of possible interest. In my area the residents of a 30mph residential road complained to the police about speeding so in due course the police set up a radar speed trap. It resulted in 37 prosecutions — all of them residents who had complained about speeding cars!
Shame they let themselves down like that. Stupid of them to campaign for a speed camera when they were among the offenders.

My girlfriend's parents were among a group of residents who successfully campaigned to have their 60 limit B road reduced to 30 - now cars tend to drive at 60 instead of 90, so it's had limited success. But they (the residents) make sure they always obey the 30 limit they worked so hard for.

Aren`t we ( and I include myself in that) getting a little bit side tracked ?
The whole point is it`s about attitude. If everyone on the roads did regard the safety of others as their number one priority then speed cameras etc would not be required.
Unfortunately many drivers do not give the impression that they adopt this attitude.
Drivers who want to drive in a "sporty" or aggressive manner are quite welcome to do so on any roads which they don`t share with me or my family or any of my friends or (if I`m being consistent) any of the other 60 million people in this country.

it doesnt say anywhere that you cant drive in a sporty or agressive manner - so they aren't breaking the law.

personally i hate people who drive at 25 mph in a 30 & then slow down at the 40mph speed cameras.

Why are you obsessed with speed? It's in the national papers today, excess speed a major cause of only 5% of accidents.
Why not turn your attention to some of the major causes of accidents and address them, if you are actually interested in road safety.

Speed DOES NOT KILL.
I believe you may find it does. The chance of a pedestrian being killed by a car doing 35mph are way higher than if it is doing 30mph.
As for the 'fact' that most acidents are caused by inattention and not speeding. That's a iffy statistic.
For example You look down at 30mph and when you look back up, you see a kid just in time to take action. You look down at 40mph and look back up and too late, a dead kid. Now the case of the accident may well be descibed, quite accurately, as being due to inattention by the driver, but if he hadn't been speeding it wouldn't even have occurred.
And even if speeding did not cause accidents then the simple fact that it makes any accident much worse is still a consideration.

The major cause of road accident is people. They drive cars and do not always focus 100% on the road. They drive when tired and when drunk. But the biggest issue of all is that they all think it won't happen to them, yet it obviously does to quite a lot of people.

im sure this in action from centertainment towards darnall. a nice sedate speed almost always gets me through every set of lights on green, my "occasional" rash high speed driving always gets me a red light.
You may find that a series of lights are designed for a traffic flow at a certain speed. So if you speed you will go above that predicted flow speed and hit red lights.
I can often drive from the uni to past hillsboro with hitting a red light if I keep average speed down i.e. below speed limit. Up my speed and I keep hitting red lights. The A38 near Bham was like that years ago, drive at speed limit and you never hit a red light.

it doesnt say anywhere that you cant drive in a sporty or agressive manner - so they aren't breaking the law.
Depends how aggressively they're driving. Beyond a certain point it becomes dangerous and they are guilty of Dangerous Driving - which is a crime.

Depends how aggressively they're driving. Beyond a certain point it becomes dangerous and they are guilty of Dangerous Driving - which is a crime.


beyond a certain point it "could" be construed as dangerous.
answering the phone,lighting a fag,eating or drinking,changing the music could all be construed as dangerous driving.which makes all of us criminals then.

its not speed that kills but when and where, I race rotax max karts and 25-30 of us can go round rounds at 80Mph + and not hit each other, if i can do that i can sure as heck stop my car/stop my car from spinning out of controll, its the old and teenagers who are causing 70% of the injurys

You may find that a series of lights are designed for a traffic flow at a certain speed. So if you speed you will go above that predicted flow speed and hit red lights.
I can often drive from the uni to past hillsboro with hitting a red light if I keep average speed down i.e. below speed limit. Up my speed and I keep hitting red lights. The A38 near Bham was like that years ago, drive at speed limit and you never hit a red light.

So if everyone drove at the speed limit no one would hit a red light?:suspect:
It cannot be impossible in this electronic age to have variable speed liomits on the roads as on the M25.
A road near us was downgraded from 60 to 40 because of school kids crossing the road to get to and from a bus stop.
So for a couple of hours each day 40mph is justified but for the remaining 22 there are virtually no pedestrians and I might add bu**er all in the way of busses

So if everyone drove at the speed limit no one would hit a red light?:suspect:
No that's not what I said. Some sets of lights are set so that when you hit one at green and keep going at a certain legal speed you go through a load more also at green. But as some people speed betwen lights they have to stop at red and then they then slow you down as they clog up the lights.
I've driven from the Uni to hillsboro and not stopped for lights until after the roundabout on many occasions.

Variable limits are a good idea. On the continent some roads have a good and a bad weather sppeed limit. And in Germany I've noticed on the unlimited autobahns people slow down if it rains. Compared to the UK where people ignore the weather.

Precisely; it's not the speed that kills, it's inappropriate and excessive speed that is the problem andthis can be above or below the speed limit. This is where the concentration aspect comes in. all other factors being equal, I'd rather be faced with a driver doing 5mph in excess of the limit and paying attention, than one doing 5 mph less than the limit but not paying attention.

Precisely; it's not the speed that kills, it's inappropriate and excessive speed that is the problem andthis can be above or below the speed limit. This is where the concentration aspect comes in. all other factors being equal, I'd rather be faced with a driver doing 5mph in excess of the limit and paying attention, than one doing 5 mph less than the limit but not paying attention.
And how do you differentiate. Do you know if the driver coming towards you when crossing is paying attention. And even the best drivers lose concentration or get distracted or simply make mistakes.
And if they are going faster as they think they are a good driver, then when they make a mistake as they will, being human, then they will cause more damage/death etc as they are going faster.
Most people's driving skills are appaling, the standard needed to pass the test is not that high.

You only have to look at the X-factor to see how people are a terrible judge of their own abilities.

The point is not to distinguish per se.
As expected, this thread has not been about all aspects of road safety, but mainly about speed as though it is the only main aspect of road safety.
My point is that ensuring drivers are concentrating and focussed on their driving is far more important than quibbling whether doing 2mph in excess of the limit turns anyone from 'safe' into 'lunatic speeder'.
If everyone cared about the quality and safety of ALL aspects of their driving and road safety, the actual benefits would far exceed what the government has achieved by spending hundreds of millions of pounds telling us that speeders are evil.
I am NOT advocating that anyone should be allowed to drive at whatever speed they like, simply that the government has placed far too much emphasis on what their own figures now tell us is a relatively small factor of road safety.

I drive on the roads and anyone who drives on the roads knows that speeding increase the chances of an accident and it definately increases the severity of an accident. You can`t ignore the rules of physics
If GPS systems stopped every car from speeding how would the criminals/"joy" riders (same thing actually) be able to drive so dangerously ?Haven't read all of this thread cos it looks like the the usual stuff started by self righteous, mis informed, anti speed lobbyist. Of course an accident is more severe if it's higher speed but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is the cause of the accident and excessive speed does not cause accidents on its own. The cause of virtually all accidents is incompetant driving which sometimes involves INAPPROPRIATE speed for the situation. That situation may vary according to the drivers competance and may sometimes be LESS than the speed limit.

All drivers need regular training but it's too hot a potato for any political party to risk although it is becoming a requirement for LGV drivers, the driving group who probably need it the least.

Right OK, this quote has persuaded me to come clean....
When I was younger (some would say more immature....) I was into all this cars bit, in fact I had a Westfield SEI with 120BHP at the rear wheels so I KNOW all about fast cars. My Westfield proved to me the fact that if you have a fast car you will drive it faster, and driving faster is definately more dangerous. If you want to go and do that on a private road that`s entirely your affair (though I`d rather pay my taxes into the NHS to treat someone with cancer than someone whose smashed themselves up) but how you can justify seeking cheap thrills (well OK it`s not cheap) whilst putting others in danger is not something I can understand.
Incidentally whilst I do NOT condone those who speed on motorbikes at least they`re far more likely to maim/kill themselves than anyone else, so it`s not quite as selfish. I also used to have bikes and it was the thought of becoming a paraplegic rather than getting killed that made me finally give up. Think on that.

Right OK, this quote has persuaded me to come clean....
When I was younger (some would say more immature....) I was into all this cars bit in fact I had a Westfield SEI with 120BHP at the rear wheels so I KNOW all about fast cars. My Westfield proved to me the fact that if you have a fast car you will drive it faster and driving faster is definately more dangerous. If you want to go and do that on a private road that`s entirely your affair (though I`d rather pay my taxes into the NHS to treat someone with cancer than someone whose smashed themselves up) but how you can justify seeking cheap thrills (well OK it`s not cheap) whilst putting others in danger is not something I can understand.
Incidentally whilst I do NOT condone those who speed on motorbikes at least they`re far more likely to maim/kill themselves than anyone else so it`s not quite as selfish.A Westfield is very dangerous in the wrong hands as I believe it's one of of the fastest accelerating cars you can get so that's a competance issue. This speeding thing isn't about speeding for fun or sport though it's about whether speeding is inherently dangerous in itself and it isn't.

[...] the standard needed to pass the test is not that high.
I disagree. The point of a driving test is to get you to a high enough standard to be able to drive on your own. Its the bad habits that develop after a test that cause bad driving.

Incidentally I must confess to some concern that no one has yet agreed that a drivers first priority is to minimise the danger he (or she, though I usually find women to be safer drivers....) poses to other road users.
Are things even worse than I feared ?

I disagree. The point of a driving test is to get you to a high enough standard to be able to drive on your own. Its the bad habits that develop after a test that cause bad driving.Which is why we need re-assessment and re-training periodically in the same way as it's a legal requirement in the workplace for lots of practises which are far less dangerous than driving. Not by City and Guilds either because they never fail anyone.

Incidentally I must confess to some concern that no one has yet agreed that a drivers first priority is to minimise the danger he (or she, though I usually find women to be safer drivers....) poses to other road users.
Are things even worse than I feared ?No, the argument as always is what constitues a danger. If we all did 20mph you imply it would be safer but there's an argument that people would fall asleep or be more distracted and might wander into a bus queue for example. I think you would admit that when you were thrashing your Westfield on a country lane you would have been concentrating rather more than if doing 70 on a motorway, just for self preservation.

Now if you want REAL danger continue the argument over which sex is the best driver, sorry I'm not up for that one.

I don`t ever say women or men are better drivers but I do think women are less aggressive drivers. That said it`s starting to change, slowly but surely.....
What is vital is that no one thinks they`re a perfect driver (by definition such a thing does not exist) because that just makes them a dangerous driver.

new released figures show that speed isn't responsible for the most road deaths. i believe its not paying attention (phone, doing make up, chatting etc)

im all for speed cameras outside schools and residential areas but in the middle of nowhere suchas cat & fiddle snake pass etc, just stealth tax

btw from jan 07 buses will have a camera mounted in them facing forward to monitor amount of cars in bus lane etc

Dear Rip
I couldn`t help noticing your moniker (throttle wide open etc) and I`d like to ask you if you`ve ever seen a dead body as a result of a road traffic accident ? I have and it was a salutory experience.
Apparently some countries leave smashed up cars from accidents by the side of the road as a reminder to other drivers and I think we should do that over here, C/W copious quantities of the blood spilt by the unfortunate victim. In this country we have a tendency to remove the wreck ASAP and I think that just helps other drivers to forget how dangerous the roads really are.
Remember this isn`t a computer game or a race track where people just walk away, it`s real flesh and blood.......

Right OK, this quote has persuaded me to come clean....
When I was younger (some would say more immature....) I was into all this cars bit, in fact I had a Westfield SEI with 120BHP at the rear wheels so I KNOW all about fast cars. My Westfield proved to me the fact that if you have a fast car you will drive it faster

Maybe it proved that about you, but maybe the rest of us aren't the same as you.
My car has approaching twice the bhp of a westfield (although it's not as fast being heavier). But I find myself perfectly capable of driving at 30mph when in a 30 limit).
I do accelerate faster than most other cars, so I reach the speed limit a lot sooner, but I only make use of that acceleration when in a 50+ zone anyway, otherwise I reach the speed limit in 1st gear and then have to change into 5th.

If troyhark was correct and speed does kill then motorways would be the most dangerous roads around, and astronauts would be extinct. Motorways are actually our safest roads though, and astronauts can orbit the earth at 38,000 mph without ill effect.

Incidentally I must confess to some concern that no one has yet agreed that a drivers first priority is to minimise the danger he (or she, though I usually find women to be safer drivers....) poses to other road users.
Are things even worse than I feared ?

If that was the priority then we'd all simply turn our cars off and walk. It's one factor that goes into consideration with everything else, just the same as safety is a factor in most things we do. It's not normally the prime or only factor.

The paper yesterday did mention that speed is a contributory factor in 25% of all fatal accidents, so it would still seem to be an issue...

Following on from the comments about the driving test I suspect that the best way to reduce the death tolls on our roads would be a requirement to go and see a dead body from an RTA. If that didn`t make people realise how seriously we should all take road safety nothing would.

I'd have thought that compulsory advanced training, a limitation on the power of engines before having completed that training and the proposed curfew and passenger limits on younger drivers might achieve more.

I disagree. The point of a driving test is to get you to a high enough standard to be able to drive on your own. Its the bad habits that develop after a test that cause bad driving.Getting someone just to the stage where they can drive on their own, is exactly the low standard I'm talking about. You are not taught how to handle a car at speed yet every one seems to think they know how to drive responsibly at high speed and it's other people who are bad drivers. We will all make mistakes at some point and driving quickly gives you less time to make up for them.

Personally I`d rather be hit by a car doing 40mph than 60mph, but each to his own I suppose..
People who walk out into the road in front of cars are just putting Darwin's theory into practice by removing stupid genes form the gene pool.

The roads, and the cars we now have, are safe for far higher speed limits than we now have.

We actually have very, very low rates of injury or death on our roads. Of course, the anti-everything types will quote hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries, but that's against hundreds of millions of journeys undertaken. The roads are safe, driving at a speed that is safe to match conditions may mean travelling under the speed limit, or it may be safe to travel well over the limit – the limits are arbitrary and often ill-judged.

Our public would be better served, in terms of road safety, if the Police concentrated on removing the estimated 1.5 to 2 million uninsured (many unlicensed and in unroadworthy vehicles) drivers from the roads, and catching the reckless chavs that tear around towns, than what they are doing now which is penalising the vast majority of safe experienced drivers who very understandably travel at 10 or 15mph over some arbitrary speed limit on a safe, dry, quiet road.

The paper yesterday did mention that speed is a contributory factor in 25% of all fatal accidents, so it would still seem to be an issue...
So was getting out of bed - if they'd been in bed all day, they'd be alive.

If the speed limit were to be set at 5mph, we'd only have the odd death as a reult of crush injuries, and none from impacts. So, should the national limit be reduced to 5mph - or maybe 2mph, so that old biddies on Zimmer frames can be sure to be able to outrun the danger of an oncoming car?

Forward speed gives a car energy, and energy kills. But we have to travel, society has evolved (horribly in some ways) and very few people now live near their place of work, we travel so much further than we used to and that's not going to change because it's commercially driven.

We have to accept that people die. That's often a good thing for the gene pool. We've already reduced the risk of injury on our roads to the point that they can't reasonably be made much safer, so we just need to accept that the world is a real place, there are dangers, and they're part of life.

I disagree. Risk is relative and (fortunately) it`s statistically measureable.
If you check the stats the roads are one of the most dangerous places that we all regularly go.

I have to say that all these arguments against speed limits etc were exactly the ones I used to use (particularly to myself) when I had my Westfield.
Eventually, with the benefit of expeience, I realised I was just kidding myself.

Am I the only person who often wonders (as I set out on a car journey) if I`m going to get back in one piece ? Surely the roads would be a safer place if everyone thought that sometimes......

I Am I the only person who often wonders (as I set out on a car journey) if I`m going to get back in one piece ? Surely the roads would be a safer place if everyone thought that sometimes......It actually sounds like you have a problem; that's a very paranoid outlook - have you considered whether you need help?

We actually have very, very low rates of injury or death on our roads. Of course, the anti-everything types will quote hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries, but that's against hundreds of millions of journeys undertaken. The roads are safe, driving at a speed that is safe to match conditions may mean travelling under the speed limit, or it may be safe to travel well over the limit – the limits are arbitrary and often ill-judged.We have ten times the amount of vehicles now as we did in 1930 and half the fatalities.
This reduction is due to measures introduced like speed limits, seat belts, better cars etc. But there are still a lot of people being killed, + injured needlessly.

Our public would be better served, in terms of road safety, if the Police concentrated on removing the estimated 1.5 to 2 million uninsured (many unlicensed and in unroadworthy vehicles) drivers from the roads, and catching the reckless chavs that tear around towns, than what they are doing now which is penalising the vast majority of safe experienced drivers who very understandably travel at 10 or 15mph over some arbitrary speed limit on a safe, dry, quiet road.There's an article in one of the curent Bike magazines about the dangers involved in motorbiking. And most actually accidents occur on safe, dry and quiet roads.
Which'll be down to risk compensation.

We have to accept that people die. That's often a good thing for the gene pool.
Not quite grasped how evolution works. Being killed by someone else's stupidity is not a good thing.
Evolution has all but ceased for humans now anyway.

Not quite grasped how evolution works. Being killed by someone else's stupidity is not a good thing.
Evolution has all but ceased for humans now anyway.People who walk out into the path of a car or truck can't blame it on 'someone else's stupidity'.

I agree on evolution comment though.

If troyhark was correct and speed does kill then motorways would be the most dangerous roads around, and astronauts would be extinct. Motorways are actually our safest roads though, and astronauts can orbit the earth at 38,000 mph without ill effect.That's like saying falling off a building won't kill you, whilst ignoring the fact that you will hit the ground shortly after. The higher the building , the faster you hit the ground, the more likely you are to die.
It's the speed of impact that kills. Motorways have a central reservation which keeps the cars apart and there are no pedestrians and parked cars pulling out for them to hit. And that's why they are safer. However when you have cars travelling at 60 and someone comes along at 110 if they hit you that's a 50mph impact whereas if they are going at 70 then it's a 10mph impact.
As for the astronaut comment, I thought you were smarter than that.

People who walk out into the path of a car or truck can't blame it on 'someone else's stupidity'.

I agree on evolution comment though.
Who said anything about pedestrians on road. What about a bus stop ful of people and a car plows into them. What about if you do look before crossing and somebody is speeding, so they were not in sight when you started to cross.
And our local boxer/lunatic driver is a classic example of somebody's stupidity/selfishness screwing up other people's lives. And excessive speed was a factor in that incident.

I'd have thought that compulsory advanced training, a limitation on the power of engines before having completed that training and the proposed curfew and passenger limits on younger drivers might achieve more.
I've always thought you should have a P plate and be limited to certain speeds and engine power. And before you can get rid of your P plate you have to pass the Advanced driving Test and you have to retake it every 10 years and 2 years after the first time to make sure no bad habits have appeared.
Passenger limits is not good. It would mean more cars on road and more chances of someone being drunk. One person being designated driver may work but every other person, unlikely.

these figs take into account people making claims for falling down potholes etc believe it or not.

these figs take into account people making claims for falling down potholes etc believe it or not.
What have tropical fruit got to do with potholes?:P

Am I the only person who often wonders (as I set out on a car journey) if I`m going to get back in one piece ? Surely the roads would be a safer place if everyone thought that sometimes......

Yes, I also wonder if I'm going to die in my sleep, die of botulism every time I eat, think I'm a haemophiliac(spell?) and die from cuts when I shave, alcoholic poisoning when I drink.........................

You OFTEN wonder?
Maybe you'd be better off not on the roads if you are driving round like a nervous wreck thinking about dying. Obviously your mind can't be on your driving with all the worry of death:P

I have to say that all these arguments against speed limits etc were exactly the ones I used to use (particularly to myself) when I had my Westfield.
Eventually, with the benefit of expeience, I realised I was just kidding myself.

Am I the only person who often wonders (as I set out on a car journey) if I`m going to get back in one piece ? Surely the roads would be a safer place if everyone thought that sometimes......Yes the roads are a dangerous place to be but it's been shown that the hysterical anti speed campaigns have little effect. It sounds like you shouldn't have had the Westfield cos it scared you s***less but that is because people need to be more than normally competant with them as they are a handful due to the power weight ratio amongst other things and you are extremely vulnerable in them anyway if anything goes wrong. You cannot judge road overall safety issues on that experience.

I do agree with you that people should be shown the consequences of road accidents in more gory detail. I have seen wrecked cars in other countries which have been left at the side of the road with signs on them saying what happened. In Reykjavick, Iceland on one of the main roads out of the city there are two totally wrecked cars high up in the air on a stand with a sign saying how many people were killed in them, which sets you a thinking as you pass.

I drive on the roads and anyone who drives on the roads knows that speeding increase the chances of an accident and it definately increases the severity of an accident. You can`t ignore the rules of physics
If GPS systems stopped every car from speeding how would the criminals/"joy" riders (same thing actually) be able to drive so dangerously ?

The reason why viewpoints like these tend to lose the speeding thread arguments is because they clearly dont fit in with why speed limits were intruduced and continue to exist.

The reason why speed limits were required to become a law of the land is because as a group, motorists demonstrated that they could not be entrusted to determine a safe speed limit at all times in all conditions. A line needed to be drawn. And like most laws, in the interests of equality and management it is said that this line must not blur.

The reality is that drivers are of different ability, experience, sensibility and reactions all driving differnt cars of differing levels of maintenance. Thus clearly safe for one could be unsafe than another. And this is before we look at categories of roads and that one 30 zone may be 'less safe' than another road. Human nature is to perform and act at an optimal performance level. Most people tend to walk at a pace suitable for them and tend not to deviate lower, Its how we act naturally.

Yet our free use of the roads is not deemed a right, it is deemed a privilege and rules were laid down that we must all follow even if their suitability is aimed at a lower common denominator (80th percentile, if someone with more knowledge can confirm the theory?). We must all interact together safely. How safely is a factor that changes over time due to political pressures, prevaling cutural attitude (driving style) and in a large part, by the current state of the road infrastructure itself - hence the main reason why the UK has less road deaths than almost any other European state.

If we acknowledging all the above then it seems pointless to argue wether exceeding the speed limit will directly result in less safe behaviour. Yet we would appreciate why breaking the limit is something that cannot be condoned. Just like any other law.

If we do not like the law, there are clear procedures on how to campaign/enact change. You can also move to another country. Unfortunately in this age there isnt a 'frontier' for people who want to live by their own laws. However a road system is something that is only created by organised culture... hence why it is a privelage and not a right to have access to one accross the entire world.

Dear Rip
I couldn`t help noticing your moniker (throttle wide open etc) and I`d like to ask you if you`ve ever seen a dead body as a result of a road traffic accident ? I have and it was a salutory experience.
Apparently some countries leave smashed up cars from accidents by the side of the road as a reminder to other drivers and I think we should do that over here, C/W copious quantities of the blood spilt by the unfortunate victim. In this country we have a tendency to remove the wreck ASAP and I think that just helps other drivers to forget how dangerous the roads really are.
Remember this isn`t a computer game or a race track where people just walk away, it`s real flesh and blood.......


the moniker is ment to be ironic yes i have see a dead body as result of a car accident. and life aint a computer game

iv seen people jump from 102 storey buildings but you dnt blame the buildings for the death do you?

people will always die in car accidents regardless of speed veiw the dvla stats for that. thats life

Who said anything about pedestrians on road. What about a bus stop ful of people and a car plows into them. What about if you do look before crossing and somebody is speeding, so they were not in sight when you started to cross.
And our local boxer/lunatic driver is a classic example of somebody's stupidity/selfishness screwing up other people's lives. And excessive speed was a factor in that incident.
Dangerous and reckless driving was the cause of that.

I drive about 30000 miles a year commuting to and from work, and I can safely say that less than 5% of the cars I come across stick to the limits, because they are TOO LOW.

Saying 'speed kills' is plain silly. Bad driving kills, and that can happen at any speed; it just happens that people who drive badly will be more noticeable, and do more damage, if they are driving too quickly. There is, however, a big difference between 'quickly' and 'too quickly'.

how come so many people speed/drive so aggressively and/or react so negatively to any attempt to improve road safety ?[/B]

I wonder if anyone will answer the question ?

So after 4 pages, we've generally established that whilst speed isn't the course of 95% of accidents it does affect the severity.
Which I still don't think justifies this complete over focus on it.
There are still the 95% of accidents caused by other factors. Look at those factors, if you can stop the accidents happening then there is no severity to consider.

For the record well over half of pedestrian/motor accidents are caused by the pedestrian.

And OT - where's the idea that humans aren't evolving come from, of course they are, it's just different pressures that affect us now compared to in the past.

So after 4 pages, we've generally established that whilst speed isn't the course of 95% of accidents it does affect the severity.
Which I still don't think justifies this complete over focus on it.
There are still the 95% of accidents caused by other factors. Look at those factors, if you can stop the accidents happening then there is no severity to consider.

For the record well over half of pedestrian/motor accidents are caused by the pedestrian.

And OT - where's the idea that humans aren't evolving come from, of course they are, it's just different pressures that affect us now compared to in the past.
Saying 95% of accidents are not speed related is a bit disingenuos seeing as 25% of fatalities are due to speed. And poor driving/distracted causes are exacerbated or even caused as a result of speed as I illustrated earlier, but not described as such.
Why target it? It's a simple way of implementing harm reduction, you cut people's speed and you will reduce fatalities and accidents overall. Making everyone a better driver and making sure they have a good night's sleep b4 driving is a lot harder to put into action. Stopping them using phones, smoking or changing CDs, fiddling with GPSs is near impossible, so a waste of time.

I'm not anti speed as such, I like speed as it happens, getting air in a car is a real buzz, but am also to aware of how stupid speeding is on most of our unsuitable roads. I'm in favour of increasing motorway limits, but also introducing variable limits for weather and accidents.

Evolution has ceased to all intents and purposes as it is pretty rare for someone not to be able to have kids these days due to modern medicine and a more civilized life style. Some 3rd world countries may have some genetic selection going on but it is getting increasingly rarer. Ironically we may be killing the planet instead! Which may introduce a dramatic selective process into our lives again.

Why target it? It's a simple way of implementing harm reduction, you cut people's speed and you will reduce fatalities and accidents overall. .So, at which point are you satisfied that speed hjas been reducedenough? 30mph? 25mph? 5mph? There will be nutters arguing that 'speed kills' whether the current limit is 70mph or 10mph
Making everyone a better driver and making sure they have a good night's sleep b4 driving is a lot harder to put into action. Stopping them using phones, smoking or changing CDs, fiddling with GPSs is near impossible, so a waste of time.Ah - so you're saying ignore all the actual reasons for accidents.
This anti-speeding policy sounds less credible with each post.

So, at which point are you satisfied that speed hjas been reducedenough? 30mph? 25mph? 5mph? There will be nutters arguing that 'speed kills' whether the current limit is 70mph or 10mph
Ah - so you're saying ignore all the actual reasons for accidents.
This anti-speeding policy sounds less credible with each post.
The speed limits we have are mostly fine really. If they were obeyed then deaths would be reduced. Having variable limits to take account of conditions would be better and if you'd actually bothered to read all of my post, I advocated raising some limits.
I'm saying ignore trying to affect thing' we cannot affect. As that would be a real waste of time. People will always fiddle with the radio, smoke, not sleep enough, be stupid, use phone. Give us something contructive about how to improve things rather than simply moaning and calling people nutters.

.
Give us something contructive about how to improve things rather than simply moaning and calling people nutters.Better training.

The speed limits we have are mostly fine really. If they were obeyed then deaths would be reduced. Having variable limits to take account of conditions would be better and if you'd actually bothered to read all of my post, I advocated raising some limits.
I'm saying ignore trying to affect thing' we cannot affect. As that would be a real waste of time. People will always fiddle with the radio, smoke, not sleep enough, be stupid, use phone. Give us something contructive about how to improve things rather than simply moaning and calling people nutters.
Perhaps we should go back to the old law where a car had to be preceded by a chap walking in front of it waving a warning flag - would that be safe enough for you?

Perhaps we should go back to the old law where a car had to be preceded by a chap walking in front of it waving a warning flag - would that be safe enough for you?Well you're obviously a half wit who canot add anything of value to debate. Seeing as the above quote in in response to my suggesting raising speed limits, I hope you can drive better than you an read, as obviously you are illiterate.
And not unsurprisingly you have no suggestions of your own as how to solve those problems.

Well you're obviously a half wit (try half-wit)who canot add anything of value to debate. Seeing as the above quote in in response to my suggesting raising speed limits, I hope you can drive better than you an read, as obviously you are illiterate.
And not unsurprisingly you have no suggestions of your own as how to solve those problems.If we're talking illiteracy, I guess I'm in good company:hihi:

If we're talking illiteracy, I guess I'm in good company:hihi:
The one time I forget to proof my awful typing! I am literate, simply rubbish at typing.

The one time I forget to proof my awful typing! I am literate, simply rubbish at typing.Perhaps, though at least it constituted some evidence. I’m not too sure what justification you had to come to the conclusion that I'm an illiterate halfwit?

Anyway, speed = good, speed cameras = bad.

Prosecute drivers when they make mistakes, not when they're driving along safely and minding their own business at a speed suitable for the conditions and road.

Perhaps, though at least it constituted some evidence. I’m not too sure what justification you had to come to the conclusion that I'm an illiterate halfwit?

Anyway, speed = good, speed cameras = bad.

Prosecute drivers when they make mistakes, not when they're driving along safely and minding their own business at a speed suitable for the conditions and road.
I suggested raising speed limits and you respond with this inane comment
"Perhaps we should go back to the old law where a car had to be preceded by a chap walking in front of it waving a warning flag - would that be safe enough for you?"

And if you don't want to get caught by a speed camera don't break the law.
Most motorbike accidents happen in good weather on quiet, safe roads, as riders think it's safer and take more chances and ride faster.

But maybe I should adopt your way of thinking.
To quote you about burglars "Wouldn't it be nice to know that you'd be within your rights to brain a low life?" So wouldn't it be nice to crush cars owned by people breaking the law by speeding, with the tosser inside.
That's about your level. You are a hypocrite to demand the right to kill burglars, whilst wanting to break the law yourself in a way that can end up with people dead. So I'd equate you on the same level as the low life burglar you despise. And remove your right to vote to boot as you don't think lowlife people like you appear to be, should vote.

If GPS systems stopped every car from speeding how would the criminals/"joy" riders (same thing actually) be able to drive so dangerously ?

Ive not read the whole thread, just the first page(and that was enough), and my apologies, if this has been said,

what utter crap


ash

around 60 million of us are on them every day,

As a professional driver I would immediately assume that a lot of the 60 million are underage and shouldn't be on the road in the first place.
Bartfast, although you seem to have a fanatiscism for correct grammar/grammer and punctuation you also seem to negate the "statement making" required to support a valid debate. So what is your point? Please enlighten us all. Please pull me on the grammer/grammar point, but please don't just open the orifice in the front of your face just for the sake of making a noise.
Luv
Howie
xxx

You can always trust Sf to be fun and interesting

I was determined to avoid adding to this subject but Darbee trying to tell me about Westfields was just too much. I had a W/F for 5 years, I built it myself including the engine/gearbox and it was in fact one of the first with a 2.0 Pinto in this country. Not only that but I had to run it as my everyday transport for two years and for most of the first winter it didn`t even have a bleedin` heater..... So I KNOW about Westfields. How much does Darbee know ? Perhaps he`s read about them in a motoring magazine ?

Incidentally to those who think I think about death on the roads too much I`ve just been reading about two of them in the Sheffield Telegraph. I`m sure the parents of the two killed would agree with me rather than you.....

Can I ask why you're so completely focused on speed as being the most important part of improving road safety? What about retesting, clamping down in uninsured/un-MOTed etc drivers, scrapping older cars etc. ?

I did write a load of stuff but gave up half way through as you'll not change your opinion anyways.

The thing about speed is that it`s something objective and measureable.
Even that lot in the British Association of Drivers say "we must improve bad driving" (which we must obviously do) but that is a subjective thing and therefore difficult to quantify, criticise or prosecute. For those reasons (plus the fact it`s so bleedin` obvious) it`s almost pointless to even say it.

Can I ask why you're so completely focused on speed as being the most important part of improving road safety? What about retesting, clamping down in uninsured/un-MOTed etc drivers, scrapping older cars etc. ?

I did write a load of stuff but gave up half way through as you'll not change your opinion anyways.But are you prepared to change your mind? Or are you a hypocrite?

Older cars, looked after and driven well are not dangerous. It's the driver not the car that is the problem.
The problem with uninsured/ non MOTed cars etc is that you don't have any info about them, so if a camera sees an uninsured car, who are tha police going to send the court summons to?

The problem is speeding, not speed per se. And besides speeding is an issue that results in many deaths a year and can be relatively easily prevented. Do you object to that. Other problems are not [all] ignored but are much harder to deal with.

The ideal solution is not to let selfish idiots drive. It would reduce congestion/pollution dramatically and reduce road accidents. Now if there was a quick test for selfish idiots whilst driving! Which could be difficult, for example some friends of mine who are really nice, intelligent considerate people are absolute psychos when then get in a car. To the point, where if I'd had a lift with them before I got to know them I would cross the road if I saw them coming.

Is there anyone out there who can disagree with any of the above and if nobody can how come so many people speed/drive so aggressively and/or react so negatively to any attempt to improve road safety ?


I think its that age-old thing of 'it won't happen to me' syndrome. people cannot believe they will be the cause of someone else's death. that's why these new adverts about road safety are so hard-hitting. the new ones on the radio are terrifying and altho effective, make me ill :gag: .

In the space of a few days, I saw numerous drivers on their mobiles, a woman pulling out of a junction whilst brushing her hair and looking in the sun visor mirror, and a guy driving a big van with both hands on a burger stuffed in his gob
:o Personality tests should be a compulsory part of the driving test, and people should chant "This is a killing machine unless I control it well" to start the ignition.

In the space of a few days, I saw numerous drivers on their mobiles, a woman pulling out of a junction whilst brushing her hair and looking in the sun visor mirror, and a guy driving a big van with both hands on a burger stuffed in his gob
:o Personality tests should be a compulsory part of the driving test, and people should chant "This is a killing machine unless I control it well" to start the ignition.
You can cheat on tests. In fact people do with driving tests now.

No, what one should do to make things much safer is remove seatbelts.
And then put a big spike in centre of steering wheel.
Problem solved.

Older cars, looked after and driven well are not dangerous. It's the driver not the car that is the problem.
The problem with uninsured/ non MOTed cars etc is that you don't have any info about them, so if a camera sees an uninsured car, who are tha police going to send the court summons to?
The V5 registration document is a three-part form that requires the seller to fill in the "Your Details" fields of the top section, then both parties sign the declaration. The seller should then send it back to the DVLA (the car will still be registered in the sellers name if this is not done, and any penalties will be attributed to the seller!), and hand the green V5/2 section to the buyer, with the appropriate details filled in. It is now your responsibility to tell the DVLA that you have sold your car, there may still be a lot of cars that aren't properly registered but these can be traced back from the last known owner and eventual track down future owners.

The problem is speeding, not speed per se. And besides speeding is an issue that results in many deaths a year and can be relatively easily prevented. Do you object to that. Other problems are not [all] ignored but are much harder to deal with.
The latest figures show that there were 3201 fatalities last year and these can be attributed to:
Losing control : 35%
Going too fast for conditions : 17%
Failing to look properly : 17%
Turning or manoeuvring poorly : 12%
Exceeding speed limit : 12%

That hardly shows that speed is the main factor in people dieing, it's the joint lowest factor. I do object to what you are saying. We should be focusing on improving driving standards and not on people going a couple of miles over the speed limit. What will reducing the speed limits achieve? American Highways have a lower speed than our motorways but have a far higher mortality rate. Americans have spent millions researching why our mortality rate is so much lower than theirs.

The latest figures show that there were 3201 fatalities last year and these can be attributed to:
Losing control : 35%
Going too fast for conditions : 17%
Failing to look properly : 17%
Turning or manoeuvring poorly : 12%
Exceeding speed limit : 12%

That hardly shows that speed is the main factor in people dieing, it's the joint lowest factor. I do object to what you are saying. We should be focusing on improving driving standards and not on people going a couple of miles over the speed limit.
Losing control is usually as a result of going too fast. You don't lose control is you are driving sensibly. You fail to corner as you were going too fast, you skid as you were going too fast and had to break suddenly.
Going too fast for the conditions is speeding really. We should have variable limits to enforce this. I've been on motorways with people going 70 in thick fog. Not breaking the law but still driving too fast and therefore speed is the issue.
And don't forget the driver involved in an accident is not going to admit he was speeding as they will incriminate themselves. So the 12% figure is from those that can be proved to have been speeding
So speed is probably a factor in 62% of cases.

What will reducing the speed limits achieve? American Highways have a lower speed than our motorways but have a far higher mortality rate. Americans have spent millions researching why our mortality rate is so much lower than theirs.

As for America you are comparing apples and oranges and wondering why they taste different. American driving tests are a lower standard, their cars handling is appalling. They overtake undertake using any lane they want to. They drive too close, their highways are much busier and much wider. All factors that alter mortality rates irrespective of speed..

As for reducing speed limit not affecting mortality. In the 70s motorway speed limits were reduced to 50mph and mortality rates dropped. Some roads in UK are still 50mph from that time.
During the oil-crisis of the 1970s, the United States government instituted a 55 mile-per-hour speed limit, which resulted in a 32 percent decline in road fatalities. However, when the speed limit was raised from 55 to 65 miles-per-hour in the mid-1980s, the number of fatalities rose; for example, in New Mexico it almost doubled within a year.
So how many selfish idiots want to argue for more deaths?

The V5 registration document is a three-part form that requires the seller to fill in the "Your Details" fields of the top section, then both parties sign the declaration. The seller should then send it back to the DVLA (the car will still be registered in the sellers name if this is not done, and any penalties will be attributed to the seller!), and hand the green V5/2 section to the buyer, with the appropriate details filled in. It is now your responsibility to tell the DVLA that you have sold your car, there may still be a lot of cars that aren't properly registered but these can be traced back from the last known owner and eventual track down future owners.
And that will zero effect on stolen cars and those that knowingly buy them.

Incidentally to those who think I think about death on the roads too much I`ve just been reading about two of them in the Sheffield Telegraph. I`m sure the parents of the two killed would agree with me rather than you.....

I was one who thought you think too much about it. To quote you

Am I the only person who often wonders (as I set out on a car journey) if I`m going to get back in one piece ?

You state you think about it often as you set out on a journey. My problem is that if this is in your mind and troubling you so much, you'd be better off not on the roads. At what point did you start to think like this.?I honestly believe (and this is not "having a go") that you must have a problem. I don't believe that anyone in a fit state of mind, sets off thinking that he may not get back in one piece.

Losing control is usually as a result of going too fast. You don't lose control is you are driving sensibly.

I do agree with a lot of what you say, but this is not totally correct is it?
I've now lost control of a car or motorbike four times in my life. All 4 times I was well within the speed limit and it was due to contamination of the road. Twice I was doing under 10mph. DO NOT say I was not driving sensibly. If you know how I could have avoided a patch of diesel whilst going round a corner on my old CB900 slowly please let me know. YOU CAN lose control whilst driving sensibly. I'm also a train driver, and know all too well about the dangers of low traction and I believe have had a lot more training on these dangers than most. It can just catch you out.

Losing control is usually as a result of going too fast. You don't lose control is you are driving sensibly. You fail to corner as you were going too fast, you skid as you were going too fast and had to break suddenly.
Going too fast for the conditions is speeding really. We should have variable limits to enforce this. I've been on motorways with people going 70 in thick fog. Not breaking the law but still driving too fast and therefore speed is the issue.
And don't forget the driver involved in an accident is not going to admit he was speeding as they will incriminate themselves. So the 12% figure is from those that can be proved to have been speeding
So speed is probably a factor in 62% of cases.
Loosing control is not usually a result of going too fast. You can loose control if you are driving sensibly, everything cannot be attributed too speed like you want. You make lots of assumptions without any backup whatsoever. Wet conditions alone make control of a car much harder, am I likely to loose control if I go round a corner too fast? Yes. If it’s wet will the likely hood that I’ll lose control and be more likely to crash increase? Yes. That is why I said we should be focusing more on driver training. Talking on a mobile phone is much more dangerous than driving a couple of miles over the limit.

Going to fast for conditions is not speeding really. You can be going 5mph in snow and still loose control of the car. People doing 70mph in fog are a different case, I do agree with you on that, but that doesn’t account for all case, again better driver training would ensure stuff like that didn’t happen. Reducing the speed for all conditions wouldn’t have any effect on those sorts of incidents.

I’m well aware of what people do and do not claim for on their insurance policies, but that isn’t what this is about. The figures I quoted are for fatal accidents only, not all insurance claims. Fatal accidents are investigated thoroughly and it is more often than not obvious when speed has played a part with skid marks etc.

As for America you are comparing apples and oranges and wondering why they taste different. American driving tests are a lower standard, their cars handling is appalling. They overtake undertake using any lane they want to. They drive too close, their highways are much busier and much wider. All factors that alter mortality rates irrespective of speed..

As for reducing speed limit not affecting mortality. In the 70s motorway speed limits were reduced to 50mph and mortality rates dropped. Some roads in UK are still 50mph from that time.
During the oil-crisis of the 1970s, the United States government instituted a 55 mile-per-hour speed limit, which resulted in a 32 percent decline in road fatalities. However, when the speed limit was raised from 55 to 65 miles-per-hour in the mid-1980s, the number of fatalities rose; for example, in New Mexico it almost doubled within a year.
So how many selfish idiots want to argue for more deaths?
You know what, I was going to respond to all of this, I’ve been responding on a point-by-point basis and only just read your last sentence. Calling me a selfish idiot because I disagree with you has made me loose all respect for you. This is meant to be a place for debate, not insults. The fact you’ve lowered yourself to the standard makes me realise what sort of idiot you are. Don’t accidentally impale yourself on something when climbing off your high horse!

If the government actually wanted everyone not to exceed the 70mph speed limit then governors would have been fitted as standard for years as was done with HGV's or even tachographs. No need for satellite technology. But then again they wouldn’t get any revenue from that would they?

You know what, I was going to respond to all of this, I’ve been responding on a point-by-point basis and only just read your last sentence. Calling me a selfish idiot because I disagree with you has made me loose all respect for you. This is meant to be a place for debate, not insults. The fact you’ve lowered yourself to the standard makes me realise what sort of idiot you are. Don’t accidentally impale yourself on something when climbing off your high horse!
You are not a selfish idiot if you disagree with me. You just have adifferent view. No biggie.
I was speaking generally, not specifically about you, but I indeed would call you a selfish idiot, if you'd rather be allowed to drive a little bit faster, even though you know it it will means more people will die. So would you accept being made to drive slower, if it resulted in fewer deaths?

If the government actually wanted everyone not to exceed the 70mph speed limit then governors would have been fitted as standard for years as was done with HGV's or even tachographs. No need for satellite technology. But then again they wouldn’t get any revenue from that would they?No government would dare introduce it as it would probably lose them the election. And think how much fuss the car companies would make if they had to fit them. Plus how would youdeal with all the old cars without them? Second hand prices would increase that's for sure.
Having said that they are muttering about chipping all cars to track them, which could be snuck in under terrorist scaremongering and would also allow speed monitoring. The goverment would save money rigourously enforced speed limits as they'd save it on reduced police and NHS costs through fewer accidents.

You are not a selfish idiot if you disagree with me. You just have adifferent view. No biggie.
I was speaking generally, not specifically about you, but I indeed would call you a selfish idiot, if you'd rather be allowed to drive a little bit faster, even though you know it it will means more people will die. So would you accept being made to drive slower, if it resulted in fewer deaths?

So Troy, do you drive at 5mph, because it will cause fewer deaths? If not, are you calling yourself an idiot?

Every year 3500 people are killed on our roads and 350,000 (that`s a third of a million) are injured. These aren`t just figures, every one of them is someones son/daughter/father/mother....... In these days of Health & Safety overkill (pun intended !) the roads are actually a dangerous place to be and around 60 million of us are on them every day, not just drivers remember.
Bearing all of the above in mind, everyone using the roads first priority should be to minimise the danger that they individually pose to each and everyone of the other 60 million, in fact they have a personal responsibility to do so.

Is there anyone out there who can disagree with any of the above and if nobody can how come so many people speed/drive so aggressively and/or react so negatively to any attempt to improve road safety ?

I wonder if anyone will answer the question ?



Driving near schools, people should stick to the speed limits, no question.

But on the Motorway, I like to do 110 at least, because i drive a BMW. If I wanted a car with a Top Speed of 70mph, I'd have bought a Daewoo Matiz.

I would like to know, why speed cameras are placed on open roads/Mptorways, and not near schools.



As for the 3500 killed, are all the deaths, the fault of the car driver? some pedestrians have a nasty habit of crossing the road when the Red Man is on.

Is there anyone out there who can disagree with any of the above and if nobody can how come so many people speed/drive so aggressively and/or react so negatively to any attempt to improve road safety ?

I wonder if anyone will answer the question ?

Speeding and driving agressively are two seperate entities.

The Transport Research Lab's own research showed speed was only a *contributory* factor in 7.3% of accidents, 30% of those were below the posted limit. Speeding is nothing like as dangerous as the propoganda suggests.

Agressive drivers are another thing, but again no worse than the people who simply can't drive at all, and there are also plenty of those on the road. DfT figures would indicate these drivers are much more dangerous than the speeders.

I'm not sure what the point is you're trying to make, but it does highlight that you're much more likely to get stopped for speeding than anything else in the UK, yet it's not even close to the biggest cause of accidents.

Also, I note your figure of 3500 deaths, it's interesting to also note that this figure has remained largely static for the last 10 years.. i.e since long before speed camera's and speed bumps were widespead. They have thus far been an expensive and spectaculare failure.

So Troy, do you drive at 5mph, because it will cause fewer deaths? If not, are you calling yourself an idiot?Personally I prefer not to drive as it's so boring. And I never said anything about driving absurdly slowly, just more sensibly. There will always be accidents, but there is a trade off between high speeds and safety, no point reducing speeds to a point where cars are pointless. Life carries risks, show are accepta;e/unavoidable, some can be affected. And if you read my posts I advocate raising speed limits where appropriate and having variable limits for variable conditions.
Actually I enjoy speed, which is why I find cars so dull. To have fun in a modern car you have to drive in a way that is dangerous to others. If I want to drive fast in a car, I'd go on a race track.

This is a quote from The Association of British Drivers which is a reputable organisation often quoted in the media.


"The recently published Road Casualties Great Britain 2005 includes
causation analysis of UK road traffic accidents (which have not existed in
such depth of detail since the late 1950s). One wonders why this
practice was allowed to be discontinued for 40 years.

The causation factors clearly delineate between accidents which have as
a primary contributory factor "excessive speed for the conditions" only
(while being within the posted speed limit) and those involving
excessive speed that is above the posted limit.

These data wholly vindicate the ABD stance that excessive speed is a
primary contributory factor in only 5% of road accidents. This represents
the richly-deserved and gravely overdue final curtain-call for "The
One-Third Lie": the much quoted - but UTTERLY FALSE proposition that:
"one-third of all road accidents is caused by speed".

It is this heinous statistical misrepresentation that has brought about
the current: "The answer's a speed camera, what's the problem?" road
safety "strategy". The sooner it is summarily and unceremoniously laid to
rest the better.

Most road traffic accidents are the result of a cocktail of road user
observation, hazard perception and hazard response failings that remain
completely unaddressed by the "one-size fits all" approach that is
blanket speed enforcement. This is why speed cameras have been such a
monumental road safety failure.

The Association of British Drivers therefore once again calls on
government to adandon its near-persecution of the nation's car drivers and
PTW riders by abandoning the indiscriminate, unsupervised - and at best
road-safety irrelevant - use of automated speed enforcement techniques,
and the immediate dissolution of all "Safety" Camera Partnership
quangos.

It also suggests as an alternative the reinstatement of the
tried-and-trusted road safety principles which stood us in such good stead in the
six decades up to and including the 1980s. What we need is the
re-creation of a balanced road safety régime in which road user Education &
road safety Engineering are given precedence over Enforcement - which
should be resorted to only in the very infrequent circumstances when the
former two techniques have proved unsuccessful. This is the only approach
which will yield meaningful further reductions in road casualties in
the future. "

**************************************************


http://www.abd.org.uk

The Association of British Drivers is run on a voluntary basis to lobby
for the beleaguered British motorist:
"Reclaiming the roads for the people who pay for them"
"Demanding proper roads (and railways) in exchange for paying one
seventh of all taxes"
"Debunking the nonsense you hear about the environmental impact of the
car"
"Promoting effective road safety instead of the criminalisation of safe
driving"

This is a quote from The Association of British Drivers which is a reputable organisation often quoted in the media.
So was Mary Whitehouse!
Do you have research from Tate + Lyle saying sugar doesn't cause tooth deacy too?
BAT also say nicotine is not addictive.
The site comes across as a bunch of self interested motorists, with some very bad science to justify their biased views

Well the 'bad science' was carried out by the dft and the stats quoted are the dft's; part of the government that tries to promote the 'speed kills' mantra, and even they can't spin the figures enough this time.
what science and whose science would you regard as 'good' in this context?

So was Mary Whitehouse!
Do you have research from Tate + Lyle saying sugar doesn't cause tooth deacy too?
BAT also say nicotine is not addictive.
The site comes across as a bunch of self interested motorists, with some very bad science to justify their biased viewsWell you aren't interested anyway because it's boring as you said earlier.

Well you aren't interested anyway because it's boring as you said earlier.Do you mean I'm not interested in breaking the law or not interested in being killed by someone speeding or not interested in people who whinge when they get caught breaking the law?

Well the 'bad science' was carried out by the dft and the stats quoted are the dft's; part of the government that tries to promote the 'speed kills' mantra, and even they can't spin the figures enough this time.
what science and whose science would you regard as 'good' in this context?
The bad science refers to ABD interpretation o fthe world in general and I had a look at the actual paper in question. The ABD simply ignores the bits that say 32% of fatal accidents are caused by going too fast, driving too close and exceeding speed limit. As that is not in their interests.
Oh and the contributory factors for accidents were 16 % for being in a hurry, 4% for aggressive driving 0% for driving too slow. 28% for breaking law like speeding, ignoring stop sign. And a surprisngly small total total of 12% was down to distraction or impairment inc drinking tiredness, mobiles. 10% was slippy road.

Personally I prefer not to drive as it's so boring. And I never said anything about driving absurdly slowly, just more sensibly.

Absurdly slowly would save even more lives though.
So are you saying that a certain number of deaths is acceptable? In which case, who gets to decide one how fast versus how many deaths?

32% of fatal accidents are caused by going too fast, driving too close and exceeding speed limit
Arnt the ABD with their 5% stastic simply removing the driving too close factor?

You seem to be doing a lot of shouting without addressing the main argument.

Arnt the ABD with their 5% stastic simply removing the driving too close factor?
.
No. Go and look at the original document.

Absurdly slowly would save even more lives though.
So are you saying that a certain number of deaths is acceptable? In which case, who gets to decide one how fast versus how many deaths?
None are acceptable, but some are unavoidable if cars are used.
Like any activity there are risks, some are unnecessary. 20mph near to a school is sensible, 40mph prob not so good.
As to who decides, certainly not drivers, who always think it's the other person who is the bad driver.

So who then, are you going to find a non driver to set the limits. A lack of understanding of driving hardly sounds like a qualification to assess potential risks.

If I pop down the street to check I can find 3 schools, I can't find a single speed camera though.
If I nip out onto penistone road, I can find 0 pedestrians, but multiple speed cameras, and the same on the parkway, no schools, no pedestrians, but a speed camera.
That's OT though, this wasn't about speed limit enforcement, it was about whether a focus on speed is a good way to reduce accidents. I've still seen no evidence that it is.

The stories in the papers last week were quoting the latest study by the department for transport btw, not some fringe splinter group with an agenda.

.

If I pop down the street to check I can find 3 schools, I can't find a single speed camera though.
If I nip out onto penistone road, I can find 0 pedestrians, but multiple speed cameras, and the same on the parkway, no schools, no pedestrians, but a speed camera.


.


YOu hit the nail on the head Cyclone. Why are speed cameras not situated near schools ? if they were I'm sure that people would be more in favour of them

Right this is definately the last message I`m going to leave on this subject but the reason I think it`s so absurd to have discretionary speed limits is there are far too many brain deads on the road. Even more worrying is that they NEVER admit they`re in the wrong, even when it`s a cut and dried case. Maybe they`re such morons they don`t even realise they`re in error, maybe they know but they just don`t care, which is worse ? Maybe they don`t think anyone has a right to criticise their driving but that`s to fundamentally misunderstand that they have a responsibility to everyone they share the roads with.
The latest was some cretin in a silver open top BMW going through a red light just as I was about to cross, and I`m not talking as the light changed, it was 3 or 4 seconds later. Using all my powers of self discipline (unlike him) I avoided swearing at him and simply pointed out he`d just gone through the light. His response ? Feeling a little chastened perhaps ? Possibly a bit guilty and apologetic (as I would feel if I`d have been in his position) ? Absolutely not, he started raving on like I`d suggested his wife had shagged half of Sheffield.
He (and thousands like him) can`t even obey a simple straight forward objective thing like stopping at a red light and some people want to let him select his own speed limit, what planet are they from.....

As for the person above who boasts about driving his BMW on the motorway at 110 mph, I`ll strain every sinew in my body to avoid making any comment and just let people make their own minds up about whether or not he`s one of the brain deads.
(Oh dear I`ve only just realised he`s probably taking the mickey, and I`m supposed to have a good sense of humour......... On the other hand perhaps he isn`t.......)

Maybe someone should start a subject "What`s the worst driving you`ve seen today "

So who then, are you going to find a non driver to set the limits. A lack of understanding of driving hardly sounds like a qualification to assess potential risks.

If I pop down the street to check I can find 3 schools, I can't find a single speed camera though.
If I nip out onto penistone road, I can find 0 pedestrians, but multiple speed cameras, and the same on the parkway, no schools, no pedestrians, but a speed camera.
That's OT though, this wasn't about speed limit enforcement, it was about whether a focus on speed is a good way to reduce accidents. I've still seen no evidence that it is.

The stories in the papers last week were quoting the latest study by the department for transport btw, not some fringe splinter group with an agenda.
You're being a bit literal there about drivers.
I've seen plenty of flowers on the verge of the parkway. And also I'm pretty sure on Penistone Rd too. You don't even need pedestrians to have accidents. Cars can do that all on their own.
There's been plenty of evidence that reducing speed reduces fatalities but car drivers are too selfish it seems, to accept that. Go and look at the figures in the documents the ABD selectively and disingenuously quote from. Have a look at their website and marvel at the twisting of information and mangling of facts to get a result they want.
Anyone who moans about speed camera only has to obey the speed limit not to get caught. I've was done for speeding on the motorway some years back. And it was my fault, no one else's. Even if Cameras are placed where you think there is no danger and it's revenue raising, you still have to break the law to get caught. We cannot pick and choose what laws are acceptable. One poster above wants to speed and also want to be allowed to kill burglars, as they are breaking the law. What a hypocrite.

Maybe someone should start a subject "What`s the worst driving you`ve seen today "
That would be never ending.

Right this is definately the last message I`m going to leave on this subject but the reason I think it`s so absurd to have discretionary speed limits is there are far too many brain deads on the road. Even more worrying is that they NEVER admit they`re in the wrong, even when it`s a cut and dried case. Maybe they they`re such morons they don`t even realise they`re in error, maybe they know but they just don`t care, which is worse ? Maybe they don`t think anyone has a right to criticise their driving but that`s to fundamentally misunderstand that they have a responsibility to every one they share the roads with. It's variable speed limits, not discretionary limits, though discretionary works on the continent. It's already been done done on the M25 and the M42.
Of course they don't admit they were wrong. It's not their fault.

Right this is definately the last message I`m going to leave on this subject but the reason I think it`s so absurd to have discretionary speed limits is there are far too many brain deads on the road.

I agree on that but the limits are set to the lowest common denominator, i.e. the bad driver. What ABD is saying as below is enforcing these limits on everyone is unreasonable and creates other problems and doesn't cure anything>



"What we need is the
re-creation of a balanced road safety régime in which road user Education &
road safety Engineering are given precedence over Enforcement - which
should be resorted to only in the very infrequent circumstances when the
former two techniques have proved unsuccessful. This is the only approach
which will yield meaningful further reductions in road casualties in
the future. " ABD

The ABD is not some self serving splinter group as has been suggested, it just lobbies for some sense in this debate and lobbies FOR road safety not for speeding.

I think in answer to the question you put at beginning of the thread you found plenty of people to disagree and overall they put forward very intelligent, articulate arguments to make that point.

I think in answer to the question you put at beginning of the thread you found plenty of people to disagree and overall they put forward very intelligent, articulate arguments to make that point.
I agree entirely with that. As far as I can remember only one person has argued for excessive speeding. The rest have put forward the idea that speeding isn't the be all and end all in accidents, there are many other factors. For this we've all been labelled "selfish idiots" with no regard for other people. Internet arguments are great aren't they.

Why are you talking about the ABD, did you see the papers last thursday and friday, nothing to do with the ABD, the Department for Transport says that only 5% of accidents have speed as a precipitating factor.

Obviously you can avoid being caught by not speeding, but there are lots of places where the speed limit is unecessarily low. The parkway is just one such example. 50 is fine when the traffic is heavy. But 90% of the time the traffic is light and 70 would be appropriate.
70 on the motorway is fine for a Ford Anglia, my car is a but newer and more advanced, for the same level of risk I can travel faster (in appropriate conditions).
Even the courts agree, a boxter driver was aquitted of dangerous driving, he was charged with it for doing 150mph on an A road. The court found that as it was straight, conditions were good and the car is capable of that speed, it wasn't actually dangerous. And since he'd been prosecuted for the more serious offence, they couldn't retry him for speeding.

Speed is not dangerous, inappropriate speed is dangerous, and the speed limit (this is key) is not always appropriate.

You're being a bit literal there about drivers.
I've seen plenty of flowers on the verge of the parkway. And also I'm pretty sure on Penistone Rd too. You don't even need pedestrians to have accidents. Cars can do that all on their own.
There's been plenty of evidence that reducing speed reduces fatalities but car drivers are too selfish it seems, to accept that. Go and look at the figures in the documents the ABD selectively and disingenuously quote from. Have a look at their website and marvel at the twisting of information and mangling of facts to get a result they want.
Anyone who moans about speed camera only has to obey the speed limit not to get caught. I've was done for speeding on the motorway some years back. And it was my fault, no one else's. Even if Cameras are placed where you think there is no danger and it's revenue raising, you still have to break the law to get caught. We cannot pick and choose what laws are acceptable. One poster above wants to speed and also want to be allowed to kill burglars, as they are breaking the law. What a hypocrite.

We cannot pick and choose what laws are acceptable.

This statement presupposes that somehow because something is written into the statute books it becomes sacrosanct and cannot be challenged.

The law of the land exists to serve the population, to enforce the socially accepted (created) boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.
It does not exist to allow the political elite to enforce decisions that contradict what the vast majority of people wish.

Why are you talking about the ABD, did you see the papers last thursday and friday, nothing to do with the ABD, the Department for Transport says that only 5% of accidents have speed as a precipitating factor.

[/b]. I was talking about the ABD because I had quoted the ABD and you commented on it and I personally think they know what they are talking about which, in the main, is the same as you.

I was talking about the ABD because I had quoted the ABD and you commented on it and I personally think they know what they are talking about which, in the main, is the same as you.

The question wasn't directed at you though, that's why I quoted someone else!

The question wasn't directed at you though, that's why I quoted someone else!
And I was talking about the ABD as I was responding to someone else who brought them up.
Why are you talking about the ABD, did you see the papers last thursday and friday, nothing to do with the ABD, the Department for Transport says that only 5% of accidents have speed as a precipitating factor.I think the papers were disseminating the ABD flawed analysis.
Obviously you can avoid being caught by not speeding, but there are lots of places where the speed limit is unecessarily low. The parkway is just one such example. 50 is fine when the traffic is heavy. But 90% of the time the traffic is light and 70 would be appropriate.
70 on the motorway is fine for a Ford Anglia, my car is a but newer and more advanced, for the same level of risk I can travel faster (in appropriate conditions). And several times I have advocated for higher when appropriate and variable limits. So what's your point? As for the parkway, I've seen lots of flowers on that bit of road, so not too safe.

Speed is not dangerous, inappropriate speed is dangerous, and the speed limit (this is key) is not always appropriate. No, what is key, is the muppet behind the wheel is the usually worst person to make that call. As everyone thinks they are a good driver and even the ones who are good make mistakes. I have a friend who has a very high standard of driving skills. Much, much higher than most. He has been hospitalised at least twice due to car accidents. And speed was a factor as he knew how to handle a car and pushed it. Too far in one case and in the other it simply made the crash far worse that it need have been.
And the 'safe' roads are often where accidents happen.

This statement presupposes that somehow because something is written into the statute books it becomes sacrosanct and cannot be challenged.Nothing wrong with challenging the law, but I was talking about individuals who feel they can break some laws, whilst condemming others who break different laws.
The law of the land exists to serve the population, to enforce the socially accepted (created) boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.
It does not exist to allow the political elite to enforce decisions that contradict what the vast majority of people wish.Drink driving used to be socially aceptable. And that was enforced by the political elite as you call them, who are elected by us remember, so we can unelect them too.

I was talking about the ABD because I had quoted the ABD and you commented on it and I personally think they know what they are talking about which, in the main, is the same as you.
They talk a load of Daily Mail/Express quality science. I'm surprised they aren't campaigning against immigrants causing congestion. There is so much garbage and twisted statistics in there it undermines some of the genuinely useful stuff.
You'd probably believe what BAT have to say about smoking, if you think ABD are not biased.

The parkway is just one such example. 50 is fine when the traffic is heavy. But 90% of the time the traffic is light and 70 would be appropriate..

Here we disagree. Too many shopping mums and oap's doddering up the slip lanes at 30mph would make the speed differential too great for a 70mph limit on certain sections.

Speed and overconfidence is the biggest killer. If we all drove according to the rules of the road there would be far fewer accidents.

Speed is NOT the biggest killer - that's what the stats have fairly obviously shown.
Overconfidence is a measure of judgement - basically people not concentrating enough because they think they're a brilliant driver - all speed does is alter the severity of the accident.

as a simplified example..
let's say you live in a small village (as I do) with only 1 or 2 main roads runing through. the village council is given enough money for a single sign on each entry to the village for a notice to motorists
Choose between
a) "Please drive slowly though our village" or

b) "Please drive carefully through our village".

I agree on that but the limits are set to the lowest common denominator, i.e. the bad driver. What ABD is saying as below is enforcing these limits on everyone is unreasonable and creates other problems and doesn't cure anything
And anyone with some sense would say, of course it's set that way. As anybody [who's passed the not that challenging test] can drive a car, the limits have to be set for the average [and below average] driver in average conditions. There are some good drivers, but even they make mistakes and get tired and or distracted.
Or are you suggesting we up limits and remove the less capable drivers from the road?

Or are you suggesting we up limits and remove the less capable drivers from the road?Those people and everyone should be trained to be more capable of using this dangerous pastime of driving, why should everyone have to conform to their low, complacent standard?

as a simplified example..
let's say you live in a small village (as I do) with only 1 or 2 main roads runing through. the village council is given enough money for a single sign on each entry to the village for a notice to motorists
Choose between
a) "Please drive slowly though our village" or

b) "Please drive carefully through our village".Is that choose which sign we will then to ignore as we drive through?:D

as a simplified example..
let's say you live in a small village (as I do) with only 1 or 2 main roads runing through. the village council is given enough money for a single sign on each entry to the village for a notice to motorists
Choose between
a) "Please drive slowly though our village" or

b) "Please drive carefully through our village". "Please drive slowly and carefully though our village" what is the point you are making?

Those people and everyone should be trained to be more capable of using this dangerous pastime of driving, why should everyone have to conform to their low, complacent standard?
Of course you aren't one of them!:P
Why not make the Advanced driving test the standard to pass before being allowed over 30mph.Would that do you?
I mentioned above a friend of mine who is a very skilled driver and yet has been hospitalised at least twice through driving accidents. He tended to push it as he 'knew how to handle a car'.

Of course you aren't one of them!:P
Why not make the Advanced driving test the standard to pass before being allowed over 30mph.Would that do you?
I mentioned above a friend of mine who is a very skilled driver and yet has been hospitalised at least twice through driving accidents. He tended to push it as he 'knew how to handle a car'.That's nonsense, obviously the driver doesn't decide whether or not he's competant as that proves, that's how it is now. We need higher standards for everyone. No I'm not one of the incompetants because I've had extra training not because I want to drive like a t*** but because I don't want to have an accident and so I drive defensively and presume everyone else may be dodgy.

Speed is NOT the biggest killer - that's what the stats have fairly obviously shown.
Overconfidence is a measure of judgement - basically people not concentrating enough because they think they're a brilliant driver - all speed does is alter the severity of the accident.Duh, that is the whole point and makes the difference between hospital flowers and flowers on the gravestone.
People are moaning about being caught going a few MPH over. Those few extra mph can make the difference between a bumper fracture and a death certificate. Esp around town.

That's nonsense, obviously the driver doesn't decide whether or not he's competant as that proves, that's how it is now. We need higher standards for everyone. No I'm not one of the incompetants because I've had extra training not because I want to drive like a t*** but because I don't want to have an accident and so I drive defensively and presume everyone else may be dodgy.
Take note of smilies before ranting!
My post suggested extra training for everyone if you'd read a bit more.
But, as I pointed out above, my friend is a skilled driver, which in his case led to overconfidence and accidents.
Overconfidence is possibly bigger issue than skill levels. Which won't be obvious in test situations as people are often more nervous than confident with such things.

Take note of smilies before ranting!
My post suggested extra training for everyone if you'd read a bit more.
But, as I pointed out above, my friend is a skilled driver, which in his case led to overconfidence and accidents.
Overconfidence is possibly bigger issue than skill levels. Which won't be obvious in test situations as people are often more nervous than confident with such things.Sorry but didn't understand your smiley. You are saying however that it's impossible to do anything to make yourself a better driver as it makes you over confident and dangerous. Your friend clearly wasn't a skilled driver because he was over confident and since he has put himself in hospital twice he needs more training on an urgent basis.

Sorry but didn't understand your smiley. You are saying however that it's impossible to do anything to make yourself a better driver as it makes you over confident and dangerous. Your friend clearly wasn't a skilled driver because he was over confident and since he has put himself in hospital twice he needs more training on an urgent basis.
Not quite what I'm saying. He is a skilled driver but was also overconfident with it as indeed many men are and although he can go faster, he can still make mistakes. I always say with every solution, there is a new set of problems. Sometimes they solutution outweighs the new issues, sometimes it doesn't.
Digital camers make taking taking pictures easier, as youget instant feedback. Shame how effing complicated, time consuming, very technical and expensive it all is now to get it out of camera and onto a piece of paper compared to slide film.

Here we disagree. Too many shopping mums and oap's doddering up the slip lanes at 30mph would make the speed differential too great for a 70mph limit on certain sections.

Half of it already has a 70 limit, do you think that the shopping mums and oaps all stop before that section?

And anyone with some sense would say, of course it's set that way. As anybody [who's passed the not that challenging test] can drive a car, the limits have to be set for the average [and below average] driver in average conditions. There are some good drivers, but even they make mistakes and get tired and or distracted.
Or are you suggesting we up limits and remove the less capable drivers from the road?

You realise it's a limit and not a target. Just because it says 70mph doesn't mean you have to try to it in a snowstorm. So the same would apply to less able drivers and whatever revised limits were set.

Duh, that is the whole point and makes the difference between hospital flowers and flowers on the gravestone.
People are moaning about being caught going a few MPH over. Those few extra mph can make the difference between a bumper fracture and a death certificate. Esp around town.

actually people were disagreeing with the OP and his message about how speed is the single most important factor when driving. I guess it just went OT a little bit though.

how about 20mph during school hours near schools and 40mph after eight? or 90mph in the dry on motorway and 60mph if the road is wet etc etc and ban all over 70 year old, and kids can only drive if over 18 with full time job

and ban all over 70 year old, I got a lift from someone over 70 this morning and I agree.

......................

Haven't read all of this thread cos it looks like the the usual stuff started by self righteous, mis informed, anti speed lobbyist....

Being answered by "the usual self righteous, mis informed, pro speed lobbyist". ;) :suspect:

Being answered by "the usual self righteous, mis informed, pro speed lobbyist". ;) :suspect:Profound stuff 4 days on. I have tried to back it up though, unlike you.

I guess you missed the ' ;) '

"Please drive slowly and carefully though our village" what is the point you are making?

That you never see your suggestion on a sign. Seriously, they always have either "slowly" or " carefully", never both. It's as though the budget never quite stretches to that extra length of metal and extra paint. :confused: Hence giving just those options..

That you never see your suggestion on a sign. Seriously, they always have either "slowly" or " carefully", never both. It's as though the budget never quite stretches to that extra length of metal and extra paint. :confused: Hence giving just those options..Maybe they should put "please drive slowly OR carefully" that could be the answer to the problem since some of are saying slow is safer and others that careful is safer.

Maybe they should put "please drive slowly OR carefully" that could be the answer to the problem since some of are saying slow is safer and others that careful is safer.And some are saying driving less rapidly is more careful.

I guess you missed the ' ;) '
Did that with me too and got a full on rant.
But he did apologise later for not understanding smiley.
So is it possible to have a rational discusion with someone who doesn't understand smilies? ;)

As for the person above who boasts about driving his BMW on the motorway at 110 mph, I`ll strain every sinew in my body to avoid making any comment and just let people make their own minds up about whether or not he`s one of the brain deads.

Maybe someone should start a subject "What`s the worst driving you`ve seen today "


Thats me who does 110mph, I do have a BMW so its OK.

Look, before every gets into a panic about speed. Lets look at ONE MAJOR fact.

1) NO ONE, since time began has ever been killed/injured by driving fast.

2) This only happens when the car is involved in a crash.

So the fact is people, driving fast is not a killer

Thats me who does 110mph, I do have a BMW so its OK.
There's a joke that springs to mind and oddly it's always the same make.
What's the difference between a hedgehog and a BMW?

Look, before every gets into a panic about speed. Lets look at ONE MAJOR fact.

1) NO ONE, since time began has ever been killed/injured by driving fast.

2) This only happens when the car is involved in a crash.

So the fact is people, driving fast is not a killer
And no-one has been killed by falling off a building either! :P

There's a joke that springs to mind and oddly it's always the same make.
What's the difference between a hedgehog and a BMW?

Does the punchline feature the word 'prick' perchance?

Does the punchline feature the word 'prick' perchance?
There was a plural involved.

Did that with me too and got a full on rant.
But he did apologise later for not understanding smiley.
So is it possible to have a rational discusion with someone who doesn't understand smilies? ;)Seems not.

Thats me who does 110mph, I do have a BMW so its OK.Still didn't establish whether or not it's a silver 3 series, they are generally the people who are a senior rep or middle manager who buy it because it's called a BMW and not because of what it actually is.

it you want a status symbol you buy a Porsche not a BMW.
Beemers are nearly as common as Ford Ka's.

it you want a status symbol you buy a Porsche not a BMW.
Beemers are nearly as common as Ford Ka's.I know it isn't a status symbol but people in silver 3 series in particular have it as one. There are lots of far better cars for the money that don't have BMW badge on them.

i agree, my senior managers all drive them and refuse to let the rest of the workforce have them.
we only want them 'cos the lease costs are less for a BMw or Audi than a Vectra.

i agree, my senior managers all drive them and refuse to let the rest of the workforce have them.
we only want them 'cos the lease costs are less for a BMw or Audi than a Vectra.I presume that is because they are considered status symbols the residual values are higher.

the residuals are better,and i can see/feel some improvements over the bog standard vectar etc. but not enough to warrant 70 or 80quid a month cost saving.
i currently drive an avensis 'cos it's the best for tax & environmental co2 emissions etc, however it drives like a skip on wheels,the paintwork is crap along with everything else. the best thing is the satnav *&i'm getting bored with that.

I find it really alarming in these threads how comments like 'few less stupid genes in the pool' are bandied about in a defence of dangerous driving.

Well perhaps pedestrians/ cyclists are stupid for getting in the way of drivers, but I think you need to think about how you'll feel on the day you do kill someone who steps out in front of you from between parked cars, you didn't see them in time, they didn't see you, now they're sprawled all over the road with their brains coming out of their ear.

I can tell you how you'll feel if you want, because I work in an intensive care unit, and one of the most distressing phonecalls I take is when a driver rings up trying to get information about the condition of the child they've just run over, maybe even killed.

Of course we're not allowed to give information, and I've heard enough grown men crying on the other end of the line in these circumstances to last me a lifetime.

So just remember, yes it might be their fault, and they might be stupid, but that doesn't mean it's any easier for anyone concerned after the event (including the driver).

Also remember if you're going at thirty and not forty there is less chance that you'll have killed them. Theres also less chance of you being charged, convicted and imprisoned for a driving offence.

I find it really alarming in these threads how comments like 'few less stupid genes in the pool' are bandied about in a defence of dangerous driving.
Probably by those with stupid genes.
Shame their seat belts and crumple zones will probably save them when they squish a child.

Probably by those with stupid genes.
Shame their seat belts and crumple zones will probably save them when they squish a child.


but as its 10 times safer to drive on a motorway at speeds well in excess of minor roads.surely it is understandable for some drivers to use the "pedestrian" wandering in the road as a defence, i mean it can't always be the drivers fault.
and as the post was regarding road safety it is about time that people did take responsibility for cycling on motorways,allowing children to cross dual carriageways,allowing children to play footie in the roads or ride bikes that are way too big for them and difficult to control.

but as its 10 times safer to drive on a motorway at speeds well in excess of minor roads.surely it is understandable for some drivers to use the "pedestrian" wandering in the road as a defence, i mean it can't always be the drivers fault.
and as the post was regarding road safety it is about time that people did take responsibility for cycling on motorways,allowing children to cross dual carriageways,allowing children to play footie in the roads or ride bikes that are way too big for them and difficult to control.


But do you not understand that saying that someone walked out in front of you and you didn't have a chance to stop is not a defence for driving over the speed limit.

You have moved the goalposts by talking about motorways and dual carriageways. Well most children seriously injured or killed by drivers are run down in their local streets. This is where we need to really seriously look at out attitudes to speed.

This attitude seems to also be quite common in the anti cycling thread "well if they dont get out of the way, pull in front of me etc they deserve to be killed"

If it is recognised that this might happen then yes, pedestrians need to take more resposibility for their safety, but those of us in the cars also need to slow down and accept that the human life that is likely to step out in front of us (stupid or not) is more important than your need to drive at ten mile an hour over the speed limit.

In the circumstances where a stupid (or even non stupid) person steps out in front of you, you will be more likely to be able to stop the slower you are driving.
If you hit them you are less likely seriously injure or kill them the slower you are going.

Its a real no brainer and I find it absolutley dispicable that people are so blase about the lives of other human beings.

the post said road safety/responsibility.

hence this means all road users imho not just car users. i wish some people would get down off their high horses & realise that accidents due to speed = 5% of all traffic accidents,the safest roads are those where people drive @ 70mph plus.
so speed doesn't kill.

however BAD driving - which includes speeding through a housing estate does.
i dont think anyone deserves to be run over or killed even if they do interfere with my driving and i never said that they did.

the post said road safety/responsibility.

hence this means all road users imho not just car users. i wish some people would get down off their high horses & realise that accidents due to speed = 5% of all traffic accidents,the safest roads are those where people drive @ 70mph plus.
so speed doesn't kill.

however BAD driving - which includes speeding through a housing estate does.
i dont think anyone deserves to be run over or killed even if they do interfere with my driving and i never said that they did.

You are right about speed not being a major factor in a lot of accidents, but its just common sense to keep it down in built up areas.....there is no real excuse for driving over the limit around town. Cambourne near Cambridge has a speed limit of 19mph. It was done deliberately to make you look again - and it works actually - everyone seems to just trundle about.

Major causes I heard from a senior police officer were:

Right turns from major roads into minor roads.

Right turns from minor roads into major roads

Elderly drivers

Drivers under 25

Other countries seem to have some different ideas that work well - we don't seem to take any notice.

the post said road safety/responsibility.

hence this means all road users imho not just car users. i wish some people would get down off their high horses & realise that accidents due to speed = 5% of all traffic accidents,the safest roads are those where people drive @ 70mph plus.
so speed doesn't kill.

however BAD driving - which includes speeding through a housing estate does.
i dont think anyone deserves to be run over or killed even if they do interfere with my driving and i never said that they did.

I'm not on my high horse, I'm actually quite distressed by some of the comments made by people in these threads that seem to infer that human life is inconsequential if it appears to slow them down or in anyway cause them inconvenience.

Also, the statistics you keep quoting are about whether or not speed is a causative factor in accidents. I'm not referring to the cause of the accident at all. I'm making the point that the higher the speed of the vehicle at the time of impact (whatever the cause), the higher the liklihoodof serious injury or death for the pedestrian, this is something that some people here will just not accept and prefer to bleat on and on about pedestrians being stupid, speed not causing accidents, i can drive fast ands safely blah, blah, blah

No one's been disputing the physics of accidents, but you have been writing in termsof those who automatically blamethe motorist for any accident, no matter what the circumstances.
I'm not saying this is true, but you give that impression.
lots of people now will always blame the motorist without knowing any facts, will assume the driver was exceeding the speed limit etc, when for much ofthe time it's not their fault. Motorists are now hacked off with this and become defensive despite having safety as their main concern.

No one's been disputing the physics of accidents, but you have been writing in termsof those who automatically blamethe motorist for any accident, no matter what the circumstances.
I'm not saying this is true, but you give that impression.
lots of people now will always blame the motorist without knowing any facts, will assume the driver was exceeding the speed limit etc, when for much ofthe time it's not their fault. Motorists are now hacked off with this and become defensive despite having safety as their main concern.

I havn't been writing in terms of the driver being to blame under all circumstances at all.
But it does make you wonder, given that it is very well publicised that the greater the speed of impact, the greater the liklihood of death or serious injury, why some people still insist on driving at 40mph through residential streets. It is comments from people on this forum defending this kind of driving that I find absolutely repulsive.

Given that this is a known fact, motorists must take some responsibility if they hit someone, even if that person stepped out in front of them, if they are going over the speed limit, because had they not been going over the speed limit their would be less chance of them hitting that person, and less chance of death or serious injury.

I guess I find this subject very emotive, because unless you have been involved with a child who has died or been seriously injured as I have many times, you can not begin to imagine the pain suffered by everyone involved.

I've consistently been defending the motorist here and pointing out that speed is not the most important factor to look at.
That doesn't mean that I condone (or myself) drive through residential speeds at above the limit.

Tell me how many speed cameras you can find on residential streets near you though, I know how many are near me, a big fat ZERO. Head for the fast A roads, the dual carriageways and out of the city, and you'll find an awful lot more cameras.
Now tell me that the government is interested in saving pedestrians lives and not in generating income from fines.

I've consistently been defending the motorist here and pointing out that speed is not the most important factor to look at.
That doesn't mean that I condone (or myself) drive through residential speeds at above the limit.

Tell me how many speed cameras you can find on residential streets near you though, I know how many are near me, a big fat ZERO. Head for the fast A roads, the dual carriageways and out of the city, and you'll find an awful lot more cameras.
Now tell me that the government is interested in saving pedestrians lives and not in generating income from fines.

Again that's a completely different argument. So what if the government aren't interested in saving lives. Its up to us as individuals to drive safely. We know the risks to pedestrians if we hit them at higher speeds, therefore we need to reduce our speed and make it socially unacceptable that anyone should be driving at above 30 in a residential zone.

Instead we find that any talk of speed limits seems to bring out many defensive motorists blaming everyone but themselved and making some pretty dispicable defences.

We need to drive at an appropriate speed for the conditions and location.
That's what i've only said about 100 million billion times in this thread already.

The posted speed limit is not always the correct speed, sometimes it is too high, sometimes it is two low.
But saying that "speeders" (ie people who sometimes break the posted limit) are dangerous is not accurate. I speed, on the sheffield parkway when it's quiet I do more than 50 mph, it does not make me likely to kill a child or a cyclist, I speed on the motorway, again, still not likely to kill a cyclist.
I don't speed on residential streets, I don't speed through the city centre, indeed you may find me driving at well under the speed limit.
If the conditions warrant it, you'll also find me driving under the speed limit on the parkway or the motorway.

IMO this makes me a good driver, not a bad one.

I've consistently been defending the motorist here and pointing out that speed is not the most important factor to look at.
That doesn't mean that I condone (or myself) drive through residential speeds at above the limit.

Tell me how many speed cameras you can find on residential streets near you though, I know how many are near me, a big fat ZERO. Head for the fast A roads, the dual carriageways and out of the city, and you'll find an awful lot more cameras.
Now tell me that the government is interested in saving pedestrians lives and not in generating income from fines.Yes. This speed argument goes on and on and on and will continue to do so. I don't think that anyone ever manages to persuade anyone else to alter their stance on it. I think the problem with most of the anti speed lobby is that they refuse to see that those of us who say it doesn't cause accidents in itself are NOT advocating speeding as such, we talk of inappropriate speed for the circumstances. 15 or 20mph may be an appropriate speed to drive past a school when the kids are out and if a copper is there with his speed gun at those times that is fine but it isn't at 9pm on Saturday. The anti speeders seem to think that we want to drive round as fast as we like, whenever we want with impunity and a total disregard for anyone but ourselves. That is nonsense, we don't want accidents either.

Again that's a completely different argument. So what if the government aren't interested in saving lives. Its up to us as individuals to drive safely. We know the risks to pedestrians if we hit them at higher speeds, therefore we need to reduce our speed and make it socially unacceptable that anyone should be driving at above 30 in a residential zone.

Instead we find that any talk of speed limits seems to bring out many defensive motorists blaming everyone but themselved and making some pretty dispicable defences.

The government claims that it IS only interested in saving lives, but its actions beg to differ.
It is up to every individual road user, whether motorist or pedestrian or other to keep as safe as reasonably possible, whilst accepting certain inherent risks
of road use and any travel.
Motorists 'problems' with speed and speed limits are that they are given 95% of the focus for 5% of the accidents caused..

Well I'll say again, I never said anywhere that speed causes accidents.

My problem is with the attitude of some posters who seem to think that comments such as those I've detailed above are appropriste, and the reason I have a problem with these comments is because they are probably matched by their attitudes towards pedestrians and cyclists.

And Cyclone, I agree that the limits on some roads are innappropriately slow in alot of circumstances, but if Joe Public decided for himself what the correct speed limit was every time he got in the car would that be a good thing? And how would we distinguish between those who were skillfiul enough to drive at 90 on the motorway and those who weren't?

And you keep bringing the argument back to the fact that you speed only on the parkway or motorway and not in residential area's. Well the evidence of my own eyes tells me that most motorists are speeding in residential area's most of the time, and this is what I feel is apalling, we need a sea change of opinion, where this kind of driving becomes as socially unacceptable as drink driving.
Instead we get people who would argue practically to the death that they are safe to drive like this. Well twenty years ago people used to make the same arguement about drink driving. We wouldn't accept that now, would we?

we need a sea change of opinion, where this kind of driving becomes as socially unacceptable as drink driving.
Instead we get people who would argue practically to the death that they are safe to drive like this. Well twenty years ago people used to make the same arguement about drink driving. We wouldn't accept that now, would we?You wouldn't get that sea change any more than you would be able persuade people to walk at a different speed because people drive at a comfortable speed for the conditions and that is about the same speed for most people in a particular place.

I don't think people have ever argued that drink driving is ok, they could do it because it wasn't illegal but it can't be compared with the speed argument. Only a complete idiot would have ever said drinking had no effect on driving.

You wouldn't get that sea change any more than you would be able persuade people to walk at a different speed because people drive at a comfortable speed for the conditions and that is about the same speed for most people in a particular place.

I don't think people have ever argued that drink driving is ok, they could do it because it wasn't illegal but it can't be compared with the speed argument. Only a complete idiot would have ever said drinking had no effect on driving.

And this is a fantastic demonstration of the atitude I'm talking about, thank you. It isn't upto you as an individual to decide what speed is safe to drive at in a residential area, because you dont have enough knowledge to make that judgement. People shouldn't be
driving at the speed that suits them they should be driving at a speed that is safe for everyone else they share a road with.

And actually, yes, twenty years ago people did think it was acceptable to drink whilst under the influence of alcohol, I remember many adults when I was young arguing that they knew that they could drive safely after they'd had a drink and being very ****** off about the laws to prevent them doing so. They may have been complete idiots but there were alot of them about using the roads.

Now to borrow your phrase, only a complete idiot would ever say it is safe to drive at forty miles an hour through residential streets. No one here is admitting to doing it, but the majority of motorists are, I know this because they're driving up my backside trying to force me to go faster when I'm sticking below the limit and speeding away past as soon as they get a chance.

Now drink driving isn't socially acceptable anymore. We need to make excessive speed equally as unacceptable.

We need to make excessive speed equally as unacceptable.


no we dont.
we need to prosecute people as far as law will allow.instead of some liberal magistrate/judge/defense lawyer letting them off with it.
there are sufficient laws to stop nobile phone use,dangerous driving - but they never get properly used. hence the number of boy racers,ladies on mobile phones and speedsters in built up areas.

And this is a fantastic demonstration of the atitude I'm talking about, thank you. It isn't upto you as an individual to decide what speed is safe to drive at in a residential area, because you dont have enough knowledge to make that judgement. People shouldn't be driving at the speed that suits them they should be driving at a speed that is safe for everyone else they share a road with.
And actually, yes, twenty years ago people did think it was acceptable to drink whilst under the influence of alcohol, I remember many adults when I was young arguing that they knew that they could drive safely after they'd had a drink and being very ****** off about the laws to prevent them doing so.
Now it isn't socially acceptable anymore. We need to make excessive speed equally as unacceptable.You constantly miss the point because you seem to think that everyone would be a maniac without legislation to control them. I'm saying that the majority of people would travel at the same speed and that the majority of people are capable of making that decision and coming up with the same answer and so if there were no limits at all most people would drive at roughly the same safe speed because they don't like to do anything else and don't feel comfortable. We are allowed to use our judgement as to whether or not it's appropriate to pull out of a T junction or a roundabout or overtake etc because the powers that be have deemed us fit to hold a license so the same applies to appropriate speed.

I don't think that if tinterweb had been on the go before drink drive laws that the people who drank and drove would try to argue their point in the same way.

You constantly miss the point because you seem to think that everyone would be a maniac without legislation to control them. I'm saying that the majority of people would travel at the same speed and that the majority of people are capable of making that decision and coming up with the same answer and so if there were no limits at all most people would drive at roughly the same safe speed because they don't like to do anything else and don't feel comfortable. We are allowed to use our judgement as to whether or not it's appropriate to pull out of a T junction or a roundabout or overtake etc because the powers that be have deemed us fit to hold a license so the same applies to appropriate speed.

I don't think that if tinterweb had been on the go before drink drive laws that the people who drank and drove would try to argue their point in the same way.

I think it is you who misses the point. If the same applies to speed (ie people can judge what is an appropriate speed) then why are most motorists driving at above 30 through residential areas?

I think it is you who misses the point. If the same applies to speed (ie people can judge what is an appropriate speed) then why are most motorists driving at above 30 through residential areas?Because they drive at the appropriate speed and that's my point, 30mph is an arbitrary figure which you use because it been set as law and no other reason. If it were 20 or 25 or 40 you would use exactly the same argument. People will NOT slow down unless there's a camera and only when they pass it because they are uncomfortable going too slowly the same as they are uncomfortable going too fast. It's you who can't make the judgement and need to be told what to do.

Because they drive at the appropriate speed and that's my point, 30mph is an arbitrary figure which you use because it been set as law and no other reason. If it were 20 or 25 or 40 you would use exactly the same argument. People will NOT slow down unless there's a camera and only when they pass it because they are uncomfortable going too slowly the same as they are uncomfortable going too fast. It's you who can't make the judgement and need to be told what to do.

Its not an arbitary figure. Research proves that a pedestrian hit at 40 miles an hour is far more likely to be killed or seriously injured than if they are hit at 30mph. This is why the limit is not going to be increased in residential areas.

You have perfectly proved my my point that motorists are not in a position to decide for themselves what are safe speed limits on our streets.

I think I'm going to do something that I know isn't safe and bang my head on the wall.

I think I'm going to do something that I know isn't safe and bang my head on the wall.
I know how you feel.

I know how you feel.I said at 3.34 this afternoon that we would never agree so I think we'll agree on that.

I said at 3.34 this afternoon that we would never agree so I think we'll agree on that.

Agreed, I'll go and talk to a brick wall instead, then!

And Cyclone, I agree that the limits on some roads are innappropriately slow in alot of circumstances, but if Joe Public decided for himself what the correct speed limit was every time he got in the car would that be a good thing?
Yes it would, because it would mean that they have to think about it, rather than always driving at the speed limit, which you see a lot.

And how would we distinguish between those who were skillfiul enough to drive at 90 on the motorway and those who weren't?
Can you not trust adults to drive to their own ability?
What if they aren't really capable of 70?


And you keep bringing the argument back to the fact that you speed only on the parkway or motorway and not in residential area's. Well the evidence of my own eyes tells me that most motorists are speeding in residential area's most of the time, and this is what I feel is apalling, we need a sea change of opinion, where this kind of driving becomes as socially unacceptable as drink driving.
Unless you are particularly skilled at judging the speed of cars as a pedestrian then chances are that you think they are going faster than they really are.
I can't say that i've noticed as a driver or a pedestrian that most vehicles are speeding in residential areas.

Instead we get people who would argue practically to the death that they are safe to drive like this. Well twenty years ago people used to make the same arguement about drink driving. We wouldn't accept that now, would we?

How can you make an argument that you are safe to drive whilst drunk? The evidence is clear, it greatly increases the risk of an accident.
There is no similar evidence for breaking the speed limit, although there would be for inappropriate speed if it were possible to study it meaningfully.

I know this because they're driving up my backside trying to force me to go faster when I'm sticking below the limit and speeding away past as soon as they get a chance.


Did you consider that you speedo may actually be overreading by upto 10%?

So when you think you're doing 30, you're only doing 27, and if you think you're being safe and doing 28 (as someone else on here claimed they always did) then you're really only doing 25.

Or maybe you're in a 40 zone and holding everyone up (although i'd guess this is less likely).

Its not an arbitary figure. Research proves that a pedestrian hit at 40 miles an hour is far more likely to be killed or seriously injured than if they are hit at 30mph. This is why the limit is not going to be increased in residential areas.

You have perfectly proved my my point that motorists are not in a position to decide for themselves what are safe speed limits on our streets.

Of course it's arbitary, it wasn't handed down from god or the alien overloads who really rule the planet. It was set when the most common car on the roads was the Ford Anglia, it had drum brakes all around, was suspended on bed springs and had tyres about the width of my mountain bike tyres today.
In short, my car will stop in about half the distance, it won't skid or spin, it will allow me to continue to steer whilst doing an emergency stop and in the event that I hit someone will be safer for them than the ford anglia hitting them at the same speed.

No, clearly many adults are not able to judge what is safe or appropriate. If they were we wouldn't have any crashes.

I know many people are speeding because when I am driving at the limit they are passing me. They wouldn't be doing that if they were going slower of at the same speed as me would they. And as I said before, I notice this happening almost every time I drive my car, so unless people just go mad and start speeding when I'm out I stick to my point.

I wouldn't argue that it is safe to drive under the influence of alcohol but many people used to, that is why I am drawing the comparison. And just to clarify, I have been arguing throughout this thread about excessive speed in residential areas.

And just to clarify, I have been arguing throughout this thread about excessive speed in residential areas.It's the definition of excessive, you are saying that it is exceeding the posted limit and only that.

Incidentally on drink driving, it became an offence to drink and drive in 1966, 40 years ago not 20.

No, clearly many adults are not able to judge what is safe or appropriate. If they were we wouldn't have any crashes.

I know many people are speeding because when I am driving at the limit they are passing me. They wouldn't be doing that if they were going slower of at the same speed as me would they. And as I said before, I notice this happening almost every time I drive my car, so unless people just go mad and start speeding when I'm out I stick to my point.

I wouldn't argue that it is safe to drive under the influence of alcohol but many people used to, that is why I am drawing the comparison. And just to clarify, I have been arguing throughout this thread about excessive speed in residential areas.

Have you had your speedo calibrated?

If they can't judge what is safe and appropriate then they are a danger all the time anyway, speed will make little difference.

It's the definition of excessive, you are saying that it is exceeding the posted limit and only that.

Incidentally on drink driving, it became an offence to drink and drive in 1966, 40 years ago not 20.

I made no comment about when it became illegal. I'm just staing that as a child twenty years ago I can clearly remember that men commonly stated that they felt it was safe to drive when drunk.

And I'm not talking about the posted limit. I'm talking about the research that proves that injuries are more serious and more likely to be life threatening if you are hit by a car going at more than thirty miles an hour.

Of course it's arbitary, it wasn't handed down from god or the alien overloads who really rule the planet. It was set when the most common car on the roads was the Ford Anglia, it had drum brakes all around, was suspended on bed springs and had tyres about the width of my mountain bike tyres today.
In short, my car will stop in about half the distance, it won't skid or spin, it will allow me to continue to steer whilst doing an emergency stop and in the event that I hit someone will be safer for them than the ford anglia hitting them at the same speed.


When the limits were set years ago, the figure may have been described as arbitary. Now that research has made us aware of the added danger to pedestrians when hit by cars at over thirty miles an hour we have very good reason to accept that no one should be driving above 30mph in a residential area.
Many drivers do not see theit victims before hitting them, so have made no attempt to stop.
The priority has to be protecting the safety of pedestrians, not the motorists right to drive faster than 30mph.

And I'm not talking about the posted limit. I'm talking about the research that proves that injuries are more serious and more likely to be life threatening if you are hit by a car going at more than thirty miles an hour.Obviously and that gets less serious the slower you go so on that basis any limit is too high But it's whether or not the accident happens or not that matters. We need to try stop accidents happening altogether not argue about how hard we hit people, we don't want to hit them at all. So long as people think that driving within an arbitrary limit will prevent accidents who are going to continue to have them.

Did you consider that you speedo may actually be overreading by upto 10%?

So when you think you're doing 30, you're only doing 27, and if you think you're being safe and doing 28 (as someone else on here claimed they always did) then you're really only doing 25.

Or maybe you're in a 40 zone and holding everyone up (although i'd guess this is less likely).

If my speedo says I'm doing 30mph, then unless I have a very bad problem with it then as you say I'm probably doing within about 10% of that. People who pass me tend to accelerate away very quickly and are very obviously doing well in excess of 30mph.

Again your argumentative attitude is a demonstration of exactly what I was referring to earlier. A desperate attempt to excuse speeding drivers rather than condemn them for driving in a way that threatens the safety of other road users.

Obviously and that gets less serious the slower you go so on that basis any limit is too high But it's whether or not the accident happens or not that matters. We need to try stop accidents happening altogether not argue about how hard we hit people, we don't want to hit them at all. So long as people think that driving within an arbitrary limit will prevent accidents who are going to continue to have them.

Well we do need to argue about how hard we hit someone. Accidents will always happen, but the speed at which that person is hit has a very important part in how serious that accident is.

If my speedo says I'm doing 30mph, then unless I have a very bad problem with it then as you say I'm probably doing within bout 20% of that. People who pass me tend to accelerate away very quickly and are very obviously doing well in excess of 30mph.

Again your argumentative attitude is a demonstration of exactly what I was referrin to earlier. A desperate attempt to excuse speeding drivers rather than condemn them for driving in a way that threatens the safety of other road users.What do you think of this as an aside. A few months ago I was driving on A61 Grenoside way on 60mph bit in my environmentally hostile car at 60 mph and I came upon a little Deawoo or Kia Azif type square box ultra dangerous car doing 35 mph on a clear road. I followed it along the road for couple of miles being a bit irritated because that had potential to cause dangerous situation because I may have overtaken him dangerously due to impatience and still been within speed limit. When we reached the speed camera when we came into civilisation there he maintained his 35 mph and was zapped by the camera. I laughed out loud which I don't often do when I'm alone. He presumably thinks he's driving safely but he's got 3 points so was he driving safely at first and then dangerously a few yards later?

When the limits were set years ago, the figure may have been described as arbitary. Now that research has made us aware of the added danger to pedestrians when hit by cars at over thirty miles an hour we have very good reason to accept that no one should be driving above 30mph in a residential area.
Many drivers do not see theit victims before hitting them, so have made no attempt to stop.
The priority has to be protecting the safety of pedestrians, not the motorists right to drive faster than 30mph.

I think you're misinterpreting the data about injuries.
Obviously you are correct, being hit at 40 mph is much worse than being hit at 30.
But you seem to be assuming that 30 is some sort of magic number, it isn't.
Being hit at 30 is much worse than being hit at 20 mph, and being hit at 20 mph is much worse than being hit at 10 mph.

There's nothing special about 30, it's arbitary, so would you argue for a reduction in the limit to 10, afterall, we'd probably virtually stop all pedestrian deaths...

If my speedo says I'm doing 30mph, then unless I have a very bad problem with it then as you say I'm probably doing within about 10% of that. People who pass me tend to accelerate away very quickly and are very obviously doing well in excess of 30mph.

Again your argumentative attitude is a demonstration of exactly what I was referring to earlier. A desperate attempt to excuse speeding drivers rather than condemn them for driving in a way that threatens the safety of other road users.

I'm not being argumentative, i'm discussing the issue with you.

The fact that it's a completely different experience to my own (and I generally do drive at 30 or lower when in a 30 limit) makes me think that one of us is probably not perceiving things accurately.
I know my speedo is accurate, i've used my gps to compare it, it underreads by around 2%, which I can account for now that I know about it.

For all you know maybe there is a problem with your speedo, that would explain frustrated drivers passing you and speeding away... Although i have to wonder what sort of residential areas offer overtaking opportunities, I don't think i've ever overtaken someone in a 30 zone, unless they stopped or there were 2 lanes.

If they are driving dangerously then I would condemn them, but given that we live in the same city it's odd how we see different behaviour.

Again your argumentative attitude is a demonstration of exactly what I was referring to earlier. A desperate attempt to excuse speeding drivers rather than condemn them for driving in a way that threatens the safety of other road users.These attempts are not desperate, it's just trying to put the point over that speeding in itself isn't dangerous and we haven't said that we are speeding anyway. You are basing everything on potential, hypothetical threats of danger at all times, that is the way of the nannying world today unfortunately. It's often wrong and is indicative of the sheep like mentality of much of the population who don't question how are why the rules are set. I'm saying Scoop that if the limit on these residential estates was 40, you would be doing 40 and saying you were hitting pedestrians less hard than at 50.

Speeding is not dangerous as long as no-one else is around, mechanical failure is eliminated, you never ever make mistakes and are the perfect driver, one who never gets distracted by passengers, radio, phone, fags, wasps, yowling children. Ever. Seeing as that is not the case for any of us and you will make mistakes, if you do so whilst speeding then the consequecnes will be worse/harder to correct..
Why do you need to speed anyway? What is so important about your life you have to hurry to get there in a manner that increases risk to others?
Darbees go and read the current issue of Bike[UK mototbike mag, not US Cycling mag] There's an interesting feature on danger in there. Bikers blame cars for their accidents, when it's mostly their fault. Also and this will undermine all the muppets who talk about conditions, Good weather, good roads and excellent visibility are when most accidents occur.

Speeding, as in exceeding the number painted on a tin plate is not automatically dangerous. Travelling at a speed which is inappropriate for the vehicle, traffic,road and weather conditions or ability of the driver, whether above or below the posted limit, is. What's so difficult to understand about this proposition? Is n mph some sort of magic number? Remember people on the continent have their limits posted in kph and they are therefore different from ours.

Speeding is not dangerous as long as no-one else is around, mechanical failure is eliminated, you never ever make mistakes and are the perfect driver, one who never gets distracted by passengers, radio, phone, fags, wasps, yowling children. Ever. Seeing as that is not the case for any of us and you will make mistakes, if you do so whilst speeding then the consequecnes will be worse/harder to correct..
Why do you need to speed anyway? What is so important about your life you have to hurry to get there in a manner that increases risk to others?
Darbees go and read the current issue of Bike[UK mototbike mag, not US Cycling mag] There's an interesting feature on danger in there. Bikers blame cars for their accidents, when it's mostly their fault. Also and this will undermine all the muppets who talk about conditions, Good weather, good roads and excellent visibility are when most accidents occur.Don't think we have to be perfect just reasonably competant. I am a biker and I would agree that most bike accidents are the bikers fault, I stopped going out in a group quite a few years ago because it got to be too dangerous as people ride beyond their ability when with others and a couple of them had accidents. Biking is a dangerous business which is why I've had a lot of training on tracks, police courses etc and looked into the whys and wherefores of accidents. Bike accidents do tend to skew the overall accident statistics as they are disproportionately high for the amount of them on the road. If the bike statistics were removed the overall casualty rates for other vehicles would be quite a bit different.

Can you not trust adults to drive to their own ability?

No. Not at all.
That is the entire problem. If it wasn't we wouln't even need speed lmits at all.
People all think they are great drivers and that it's always the other person's fault. I used to hitch. A lot. 20,000+ miles a year. And most drivers were passable, but too many were effing awful and would curse and swear at all the idiots on the road, when most of the time they did something stupid, it was obvious there was a problem ocuring, the muppet did not read road properly or drove too fast for the conditions. 80mph in thick fog for example.
People are very, very poor judges of their own ability. Just watch X-factor auditions. Men are worse as their usually believe they are better than they really are, whereas women think they are not as good as they are. This confidence sometimes enables blokes to do stuff and other times, it simply leads them into danger. Over confidence and a car are not a good combination.

Don't think we have to be perfect just reasonably competant. You'll still make mistakes even if competent and the faster you are going, the less time to correct error and the more damage caused.
You all seem to be ignoring basic physics. F=MA.

I am a biker and I would agree that most bike accidents are the bikers fault, I stopped going out in a group quite a few years ago because it got to be too dangerous as people ride beyond their abilityAnd car drivers are no different really.
So what is your point again?



To illustrate how pointless a lot of this arguing is. A friend of mine worked for the post office and drove a van across the Snake twice a day. And people would hare past him and do their best to go as fast as possible, whilst he tootled along at the speed limit. When he got to the big roundabout at end of the Motorway at Manchester, these cars that had sped past him 20 miles earlier were usually sitting only a few cars in front, at the traffic lights too. It makes so little difference, with all the traffic lights, why bother?

You'll still make mistakes even if competent and the faster you are going, the less time to correct error and the more damage caused.
You all seem to be ignoring basic physics. F=MA.

To illustrate how pointless a lot of this arguing is. A friend of mine worked for the post office and drove a van across the Snake twice a day. And people would hare past him and do their best to go as fast as possible, whilst he tootled along at the speed limit. When he got to the big roundabout at end of the Motorway at Manchester, these cars that had sped past him 20 miles earlier were usually sitting only a few cars in front, at the traffic lights too. It makes so little difference, with all the traffic lights, why bother?People don't neccessarily go faster to get there quicker, they may do it because they like it and it may not be dangerous and it's less boring.

People don't neccessarily go faster to get there quicker, they may do it because they like it and it may not be dangerous and it's less boring.So for entirely selfish reasons they will risk other people's lives.
Which say it all really.
Driving is inherently boring, get over it.
If you want to go fast, go on a track day at Donnington and when you crash there's someone there to pick you up.

I've seen plenty of crashes on the Snake. Now that must be really exciting when the car tumbles over a few times before smashing your spine and killing somebody in a car coming the other way.

You'll still make mistakes even if competent and the faster you are going, the less time to correct error and the more damage caused.
You all seem to be ignoring basic physics. F=MA.

And car drivers are no different really.
So what is your point again?



To illustrate how pointless a lot of this arguing is. A friend of mine worked for the post office and drove a van across the Snake twice a day. And people would hare past him and do their best to go as fast as possible, whilst he tootled along at the speed limit. When he got to the big roundabout at end of the Motorway at Manchester, these cars that had sped past him 20 miles earlier were usually sitting only a few cars in front, at the traffic lights too. It makes so little difference, with all the traffic lights, why bother?

This only applies if there will be congestion ahead. If they'd be 'speeding' past to reach glossop, they'd have parked up and been about their business for 20 minutes before he arrived.

No. Not at all.
That is the entire problem. If it wasn't we wouln't even need speed lmits at all.

I disagree. Speed limits are supposed to be set at the 85th percentile of the speed that traffic travels at, it's only a guideline, but it's a commonly used one.

This guideline must presuppose that most people are driving within the limits of themselves and their cars and at a speed appropriate for the road.

We have to trust drivers to use their judgement all the time, whenever conditions are less than perfect, when pulling out of a junction, hell, just driving in a straight line. If they can be trusted to do all that, I think they could (with a few exceptions) be trusted to judge an appropriate speed for the road.

This only applies if there will be congestion ahead. If they'd be 'speeding' past to reach glossop, they'd have parked up and been about their business for 20 minutes before he arrived.
But there are always other cars ahead, which was the point really. That's a very busy road.
And seeing as it only takes him 20mins for that bit of the journey. They'd have to drive like suicidal tossers to be there 20mins earlier, if at all possible.

I disagree. Speed limits are supposed to be set at the 85th percentile of the speed that traffic travels at, it's only a guideline, but it's a commonly used one.

This guideline must presuppose that most people are driving within the limits of themselves and their cars and at a speed appropriate for the road.

We have to trust drivers to use their judgement all the time, whenever conditions are less than perfect, when pulling out of a junction, hell, just driving in a straight line. If they can be trusted to do all that, I think they could (with a few exceptions) be trusted to judge an appropriate speed for the road.
So how so many people get done for speeding?
And I'll repeat myself, once again, driver's judgement of their own abilities is notoriously awful.

People only drive as slow as they do around town because of limits and the risk of being caught. Drivers, being human are selfish and do not consider others a lot of the time, which isn't a big problem until you behave like that in something that can and regularly does kill. Less than it used to as drivers are more likely to survive their crashes these days as they have to wear seat belts and cars are better made. However, rear passenger, pedestrian and cycling deaths and injuries went up when front seatbelts were made compulsory as drivers felt safer and drove more dangerously and with even less consideration for others. Another example of poor judgement and awareness of the driver. The safer the car feels the more risks the driver willl take. Basic risk compensation. And something that skews one's judgement without you even realising it.

Half of it already has a 70 limit, do you think that the shopping mums and oaps all stop before that section?

The slip roads are better and the visibility in general is better on the NSL section.

I disagree. Speed limits are supposed to be set at the 85th percentile of the speed that traffic travels at, it's only a guideline, but it's a commonly used one.

This guideline must presuppose that most people are driving within the limits of themselves and their cars and at a speed appropriate for the road.

We have to trust drivers to use their judgement all the time, whenever conditions are less than perfect, when pulling out of a junction, hell, just driving in a straight line. If they can be trusted to do all that, I think they could (with a few exceptions) be trusted to judge an appropriate speed for the road.

You are very, very blinkered. Your assertion that most drivers can judge appropriate and safe speeds is an absolute nonsence. I feel very sorry that people with attitudes such as yours are allowed on the roads.

But there are always other cars ahead, which was the point really. That's a very busy road.
And seeing as it only takes him 20mins for that bit of the journey. They'd have to drive like suicidal tossers to be there 20mins earlier, if at all possible.

You have picked out one particular road, the argument certainly doesn't hold true for all roads or at all times.

People get 'done' for speeding for several reasons. Maybe they are in the 15 percentile points above the 85th, or maybe the council forgot to zone the road to 40 and so it's been left at 30. Or maybe they really are irresponsible and are driving inappropriately fast.

Scoop - you must be very very scared when you drive around in bad weather then. The speed limits stay the same, you're convinced that people are too stupid to slow down, so it must be absolute carnage out there the minute the roads get wet and stopping distances increase by 25%. And if it snows... well we may as well just dig a big trench for the bodies and get the quick lime ready.

I remember seeing a sudden (unexpected) heavy fall of snow on the parkway, it must have been earlier in 06. People slowed down to around 10 mph. Amazing, all those drivers must have been something really special (me included) as they didn't all just brazenly continue on at 50, in their supreme confidence of self ability and inability to regulate themself.

You have picked out one particular road, the argument certainly doesn't hold true for all roads or at all times.So a particular example which doesn't fit in with your theory gets dismissed as it's only one road.
Well the same applies on to the road to Huddersfield. or does that not count either. Or the Woodhead pass, or does that not count either as that's only 3 roads? Name a single carriageway road feeding out/into Sheffield that does not have the same problem. Or would that not count as it's just one town?

People get 'done' for speeding for several reasons. Maybe they are in the 15 percentile points above the 85th, or maybe the council forgot to zone the road to 40 and so it's been left at 30. Or maybe they really are irresponsible and are driving inappropriately fast.They get done because thay speed. That's the only reason.
The 85 percentile comment is not true. It's the mean speed, which is a lot slower. To quote from Dep of Tansport guidelines for setting limits.
"Mean speeds and 85th percentile speeds (the speed at or below which 85% of the traffic is travelling) are the most commonly recorded characteristics of speed. Traffic authorities should continue to routinely collect and assess both, but mean speeds should be used as the basis for determining local speed limits. This is a change from the use of 85th percentile speed in Circular Roads 01/93 (DoT, 1993). As explained in paragraph 17, the use of mean speeds is underpinned by extensive research demonstrating the well proven relationship between speed and accident frequency and severity."

I keep forgetting to mention this. Something to consider, higher speed limits do not mean you get there faster, unless you are the only car on the road.
And I'll quote again

"Higher speed is often perceived to bring benefits in terms of shorter travel times for people and goods. However, evidence suggests that when traffic is travelling at constant speeds, even at a lower level, it may result in shorter and more reliable overall journey times."
Our roads cannot cope with the volume of traffic that is common today, so that is also taken into account. So roads leading into an area, although they may be safe enough to drive faster, are given a lower limit to avoid congestion when all the fast moving traffic hits the bottle neck. Parkway would be a good example. It's a good enough road in itself to drive at 70 all the way to the roundabout, but you'd simply get more waiting at the traffic lihghts instead. You just have to look at motorways when parts are restricted due to works. If people gradually slowed down in advance of a 3 into 2 lane and didn't try and push in at the last minute, you wouldn't get the 4-5 mile tailbacks that commonly ocur because of individual selfishness.

Scoop - you must be very very scared when you drive around in bad weather then. The speed limits stay the same, you're convinced that people are too stupid to slow down, so it must be absolute carnage out there the minute the roads get wet and stopping distances increase by 25%. And if it snows... well we may as well just dig a big trench for the bodies and get the quick lime ready.

I remember seeing a sudden (unexpected) heavy fall of snow on the parkway, it must have been earlier in 06. People slowed down to around 10 mph. Amazing, all those drivers must have been something really special (me included) as they didn't all just brazenly continue on at 50, in their supreme confidence of self ability and inability to regulate themself.Usually the reason people slow down is because the cars in front have slowed them down. And the city has ground to a halt in snow on several occasions as people drive too close and have no idea in general how to drive in snow.

I've seen people doing 70+ on hard packed snow on the M4. I've heard people flying past in the fog about 50-70mph, I couldn't see them as it was so foggy I was in third gear and could barely see one cats eye ahead. Just as well those sort of people never use the inside lane as they think it's wussy. I've seen full motorways going at 80mph in torrential rain. People drive at stupid speeds in bad weather. I've been on the motorway in heavy rain and seen 4 or 5 separate pile ups in one journey on more than one occasion.

I didn't dismiss it, i said it didn't apply to all roads.
I accept that speeding before reaching a congested section of road gains you nothing. I had plenty of time to test the practicality and make some basic calculations when commuting from swansea to sheffield every week.
Depending on the time you're travelling I could name any road I think. If you travel to manchester at the weekend, the traffic is pretty light, being held up on the snake can add 20 minutes to a journey easily.

If the traffic is heavy then higher speeds are inappropriate anyway, and generally impossible.
So I guess this isn't the time when cameras make the most revenue. Maybe the times when traffic is light/very light are when a higher speed would be both effective and safe, but coincidentally also the time when the camera makes the most $$$ for the government.

I suggest that if the government were really interested in safety, it would have invested in the research (at leeds uni I think) into cameras that would be used to spot tailgating drivers. I think inappropriate braking distance is one of the highest causes of accidents... Not as high as driver inattention, but a camera is never going to spot inattention.
Okay, so 85th is the old way of doing that, i'll have to remember that. I wonder why the change though, and what logic actually underpins it.

Your logic would suggest that the parkway limit should be variable, and outside rush hour should revert to NSL, and it also brings you into agreement with me over (i think) a key point. It is not always unsafe to break the speed limit. The parkway would indeed be safe at 70mph all the way to the roundabout, and on say saturday morning at 0600, why is the camera sat there flashing away at anyone doing above 46mph? Not safety, and at that time, not congestion.

There is another thread regarding filtering in turn and using the available road. Moving into 2 lanes when still 1 mile from the restriction in lane 3 is foolish and wastes road capacity.

Usually the reason people slow down is because the cars in front have slowed them down. And the city has ground to a halt in snow on several occasions as people drive too close and have no idea in general how to drive in snow.

I've seen people doing 70+ on hard packed snow on the M4. I've heard people flying past in the fog about 50-70mph, I couldn't see them as it was so foggy I was in third gear and could barely see one cats eye ahead. Just as well those sort of people never use the inside lane as they think it's wussy. I've seen full motorways going at 80mph in torrential rain. People drive at stupid speeds in bad weather. I've been on the motorway in heavy rain and seen 4 or 5 separate pile ups in one journey on more than one occasion.

Maybe i'm unusual then. It snowed, i could feel that the road was slippery, I slowed right down.
Everyone else seemed to just do the same, I could have gone faster, it would have just been a stupid thing to do, as even at 10mph my esp kept kicking in.

You are very, very blinkered. Your assertion that most drivers can judge appropriate and safe speeds is an absolute nonsence. I feel very sorry that people with attitudes such as yours are allowed on the roads.

All drivers judge appropriate and safe speeds all the time. if they couldn't do it competently for most of the time, there would be much more carage on the roads than there is currently. You seem to have the view that drivers can only be trusted to do this below whatever the stated speed limit and never above it, despite the wholesale reduction in speed limits taking limits on many roads across the country for no good reason (ie on roads without ANY crash history).

You also seem to believe that because lower impact speeds reduce the severity of accidents, we should all ideally drive about 10mph lower than the speed limit. the point is that is people are concentrating properly, the accident is far less likely to happen in the first place, and for those few accidents that become unavoidable, the alert driver will have created the time and space about them to reduce the severity of the accident, probably to less than that of theone who was doing 28mph, but not really concentrating because he thinks driving is inherently boring.

Remember I have suggested variable speed limits.
Something else for you to digest from DoT giudelines.
"Research has in particular proven the correlation between speed and accident frequency and severity, and accident reductions. Much of this evidence has been demonstrated by and around mean vehicle speeds including, for example, how each 1 mph reduction in average speed reduces accident frequency by 5% (Finch et al., 1993; Taylor et al., 2000). ‘Safer speeds’ was therefore one of the ten themes in the road safety strategy, reflecting the important contribution that effective speed management can make towards delivery of the 2010 casualty reduction targets. The revision of this guidance was one of a number of speed management commitments in the road safety strategy."
There is another thread regarding filtering in turn and using the available road. Moving into 2 lanes when still 1 mile from the restriction in lane 3 is foolish and wastes road capacity.No, you start reducing speed and encourage people to move in from there and if they aren't too selfish then your average speed wil be higher and you reduce bottle necking
A mile is only one minute away or less for those in outside lane and not a lot of time to get 3 lanes into 2.
Commenting on road capacity is sort of absurd absurd as most car drivers only use two lanes on a 3 lane motorway anyway.

Driving is inherently boring, get over it.


If this is what you truly believe, then I would suggest you're not concentrating enough when you are driving.
Even the most featureless roads like the far reaches of the M5 towards cornwall have plenty to occupy your mind.

All drivers judge appropriate and safe speeds all the time. if they couldn't do it competently for most of the time, there would be much more carage on the roads than there is currently. You seem to have the view that drivers can only be trusted to do this below whatever the stated speed limit and never above it, despite the wholesale reduction in speed limits taking limits on many roads across the country for no good reason (ie on roads without ANY crash history).Most drivers drive as fast as they can get away with. The speed limits and the chance of getting caught holds them in check. Not quite grasping causuality here methinks.
Pedestrian, rear passenger and cycle deaths rose with front seatbelt legislation, which illustrates drivers judgement is concerned with/altered by their well being and not that of others.

You also seem to believe that because lower impact speeds reduce the severity of accidents, we should all ideally drive about 10mph lower than the speed limit. the point is that is people are concentrating properly, the accident is far less likely to happen in the first place, and for those few accidents that become unavoidable, the alert driver will have created the time and space about them to reduce the severity of the accident, probably to less than that of theone who was doing 28mph, but not really concentrating because he thinks driving is inherently boring.
The only people suggesting driving at stupidly slow speeds are those annoyed by others saying speed has a big infliuence on accident rates and this is their foolish way of arguing back by absurd exageration.

Annoyed by a blatant falsehood, there's a turnup for the books.
I thought we'd all agreed with the DfT that it was 5% of accidents that are caused by speed.

If this is what you truly believe, then I would suggest you're not concentrating enough when you are driving.
Even the most featureless roads like the far reaches of the M5 towards cornwall have plenty to occupy your mind.And I would suggest you are talking out of your posterior.
Sitting at traffic lights or in slow moving traffic, which is the reality of much driving is boring. Even if you concentrate really hard, it's still boring. Driving on quiet motorways is also dull, you are driving well within the car's limits and hardly any traffic to watch out for.
And If I'm not concentrating I pull over and have a kip.

Annoyed by a blatant falsehood, there's a turnup for the books.
I thought we'd all agreed with the DfT that it was 5% of accidents that are caused by speed.
No only the idiots did. Sorry cyclone, you're not that dumb. That figure was plucked out of context by very selective reading of statistics by a self interested group. I read all the stats and not just that one. Would you believe anything BAT has to say about nicotine addiction? They denied it even existed to a grand jury recently. ABD are no different.
That 5% quoted was excessive speed [Prince Nassem anyone]and there were plenty of other percentages that also included speed as a cause.
ABD also changed 'excessive speed' to 'speed' to help further their biased case.

So are you prepared to admit increase in speed increases incidence of accidents? I don't agree with some uses of speed cameras but arguing against them by saying speeding makes no difference to accidents is such unmitigated nonsense?

Another example of risk compensation behaviour and how it affects judgement.
I helped buld a mountain bike race course a few years ago and some people complained it was too dangerous and people would get hurt. This was because there was a very narrow twisty track covered with roots and rock and with a seriously big drop to one side [the main complainers were roadies who didn't know how to ride a mountain bike]. And there was indeed a bad accident and someone's life was saved by swift intervention of a first aider. Where did the accident happen? On the wide open grasy section just after the 'very dangerous' bit. People took care on the apparently dangerous section, so it was actually not an issue. They got to the 'safe looking' section and relaxed their guard. Drivers fool themselves like that all the time and most accidents happen close to home on roads they know well.
Roads which appear safe to a driver, may not actually be as safe as they think, as people use visually cues to determine saftey and these can be very misleading.
One effective way of reducing speeding is to make a road seem narrower by using trees on the side of road. Dangerous bends have been made 'safer' by decreasing their radius and all that happens is that people drive faster around the 'safer' bend and there is no change in real danger.

cars are weapons. when we drive them, we need to remember that.

But usually ignored.
Also, if a pedestrian or a cyclist does something stupid they usually kill themselves and not someone else.

No only the idiots did. Sorry cyclone, you're not that dumb. That figure was plucked out of context by very selective reading of statistics by a self interested group. I read all the stats and not just that one. Would you believe anything BAT has to say about nicotine addiction? They denied it even existed to a grand jury recently. ABD are no different.
That 5% quoted was excessive speed [Prince Nassem anyone]and there were plenty of other percentages that also included speed as a cause.
ABD also changed 'excessive speed' to 'speed' to help further their biased case.

So are you prepared to admit increase in speed increases incidence of accidents? I don't agree with some uses of speed cameras but arguing against them by saying speeding makes no difference to accidents is such unmitigated nonsense?

Excessive speed when recorded by the police doesn't mean breaking the speed limit, it means excessive for that time and place in those conditions.
That report and this statistic did not come from the ABD, I have no idea where you got the idea that it did. There is a similar older report that was interpreted by the ABD to give these figures.
The report that was in the papers last week (which I don't believe has been released on the website yet, so i've not seen it) was direct from the DfT, not the ABD.

The evidence suggests that it doesn't, at least not alone. The fastest roads in the country have the lowest rates of accidents.

Usually the reason people slow down is because the cars in front have slowed them down. And the city has ground to a halt in snow on several occasions as people drive too close and have no idea in general how to drive in snow.

I've seen people doing 70+ on hard packed snow on the M4. I've heard people flying past in the fog about 50-70mph, I couldn't see them as it was so foggy I was in third gear and could barely see one cats eye ahead. Just as well those sort of people never use the inside lane as they think it's wussy. I've seen full motorways going at 80mph in torrential rain. People drive at stupid speeds in bad weather. I've been on the motorway in heavy rain and seen 4 or 5 separate pile ups in one journey on more than one occasion.

Thank you for answering that point on my behalf, troyhark. I'm not going to respond in this thread anymore as there are obviously some very misguided people here who would argue black is white in order to make a point. I also notice one person in particular who likes to put words in your mouth and attribute opinions to other users that they have never voiced. Unfortunatly this makes it impossible to have a sensible debate.

Usually the reason people slow down is because the cars in front have slowed them down.
You realise that this argument is circular. You now need to explain why the cars in front have slowed down.