DT Ralge

“Use your imagination” is what I normally suggest to my trainees. I can’t imagine which road you have in mind. If you perceive low risk, crack on. Just look/think a little harder than “I’m at 50, nothing has gone wrong (I’m still shiny side up) or could go wrong”.

Conditions are important ... drivers aren’t robots, though. Physical skills or lack of them do not cause too many crashes. It’s the stuff going on in the head or gut that gets in the way. it’s beliefs and attitudes that drive behaviour. So there’s other stuff going on that impacts on road safety and driver outcomes: - driver understanding of the impact of and higher interaction with the time of day/year, weather and road conditions - driver understanding and proficiency in the use of any of the vehicle’s in-built technologies i.e. everything from tyres to drl’s and ABS/ESP. - driver attitude to vehicle checks and road-worthiness, - driver mood and state of mind (bored, angry, anxious, upset) - driver agenda and motivators (late, lost ..) - driver experience/confidence levels and self-image (im not going to get stuck behind this van ...) - driver focus and interaction with other road users (collaborative or competitive) and so on.

And there are a lot of drivers out there who over-estimate their abilities and see speed in a one-dimensional way (and don’t see driving risk in all its layers) - speed, in itself, is not harmful and does not kill (whatever the advert from the Think campaign says). Look up the Swiss Cheese model of Accident Causation, understand it and see the setting of speed limits in a multi-dimensional and multi-factoral context instead. Ask yourself what latent and active risks are there in your or others’ day-to-day driving before claiming that it would be “perfectly safe” for you or anyone else to drive down this or that road at a higher speed than you are allowed to currently.

Me, too.

Too much £££ for barriers on Bochum Parkway, no budget or perceived priority M621 into Leeds = comparable and = 50 limit ”no-one” sticking to the limit can be seen as widespread non-compliance - it takes a brave person to move limit to 85th percentile. I see plenty of non-compliance in many contexts (not just speed-related), I see stupid, selfish, arrogant, intolerant, impatient drivers rather than a need to change the law. Just a viewpoint.

Bochum Parkway needs barriers around lampposts before 50 can be allowed. Penistone Road - I reckon there's too much going on, too many lights and junctions - raising the limit would also lead to a much greater degree of concertina-ing. Sheffield Parkway, could be too many both on and off ramps. Ringinglow Road? Is it 50 or NSL? History of crashes and cyclist (?) deaths? Too many hidden dips? I'm sure that limits are reduced because of poor driver decisions, outcomes and incidents and we get what we deserve: accompanying the authorities' attempts to get KSI stats down year on year, roads get limited to the lowest common denominator,

I don’t disagree with a suggestion of increasing m/w to 80 in good conditions but reducing it (as over the Channel) to 70 in bad weather. But we could do with realising it’s 80 not 90 and with using German technology that enforces space ahead at whatever speed we are travelling at.

Which roads do you think could have higher limits? And why? Do you think that because of shorter braking/stopping distances that are achievable with modern cars?

Indeed, he probably does as do others but I always wonder whether he or anyone else knows (my daily work experience suggests ignorance or only a vague understanding of) - what ABS is - what ABS does - what its limitations are - whether there's been any ABS training in his driving background (you can’t Google hands-on, feet-on training experience). The ongoing reduction in limits acknowledges a belief that lower prevailing speed means fewer and less serious bumps together with the authorities insistence that we should not accept 5 deaths per day as the ongoing norm (down from 9-10 a day in the time I’ve been a trainer). Commentators focus largely, nay exclusively, on the authorities' perceived fixation on speed. But, with drivers' eyes opened and genuine ignorance put aside by training inputs, there are in fact more than a handful of (and a variety of) road safety interventions that target something other than illegal speed. With this open-eyed and open-minded perspective, there's so much more to the authorities' road safety efforts than merely cameras/scameras. Nb also that crumple zones and airbags do nothing for vulnerable road users since they are outside the box. Nb. Pedestrians account for a quarter of the death toll.

Yep, I’ve heard similar assertions quite a lot in the past. No doubt vehicle technology has contributed massively to the reduction in road deaths. But please be bold and specific in this assertion - so that you can’t be accused of making unsubstantiated assertions, what advancements make the speed limits outdated? why? how? i ask since your assertion (so often repeated it’s become a cliché) stems from the base of your belief system and needs analysing ... and I’ve got the time and patience for analysis.

Phone use has been and is being targeted - and this has been given more than a little press/TV coverage. The latest cameras have sufficient definition to capture drivers on the phone and are doing so. Drivers are prosecuted and sent onto relevant diversionary courses. Photographic evidence is now accepted for this and other offences whereas they used to be “observed” offences I.e. by a PC in the flesh. What question(s) were not answered? Now’s your chance to ask and there is nothing on here to answer fully and honestly - the trainers have material to cover and they get heavily criticised in they allow a question or two from the floor to derail their progress through the course. Bear in mind also that some questions, in fairness, get asked that are so stupid that the “inclusive” way to deal with them is to answer “we’ll get to that in time ... have a word with me over coffee” (been there, done that). Sorry, in my rush to write and go - I meant the road from J36 of M1 into town.

I’m almost out and gone, you are shaping up like a good old-fashioned troll (I prefer “****-stirrer”) and most likely a waste of time and space (but I’ll give you the benefit of doubt) You appear to set out to write ••••• and wait for others to take the bait. You offer nothing other than bluster and half-insults and denigration to what could be an intelligent and sensible debate about speed and speed enforcement. You are either pretending to be provocatively stupid (like newvanandman, tisme ... before you) for your own entertainment or you actually are. Which is it? Expert in deflection? Do you mean he/she dealt with your question/argument/valid point. Try one, try them all - as a trainer, I’m keen to answer the usual beefs, I’ve heard them all before (well, I think I have). You might be surprised by my answers (if you can keep your mind open for a little while) - I don’t consider myself brainwashed and welcome your ideas/questions/valid points.

Not at all, the Parkway’s 40 limit was added in the last 20 years. The road into Hillsboro was reduced to 50 10 years (?) ago ... loads of roads in Derbyshire have been reduced to less than NSL in recent years. In 1965, the NSL Sign meant no speed limit. In 1996/7 it became 70, in 1976/7 National Speed Limits were introduced. In 1966, we saw +/- 8000 road deaths. What was the figure in 2017? I’m sure you’ll know (or be able to google it). Not at all, having been a trainer on such courses, I think I have a more reasoned and intelligent understanding of how well the courses go down. We didn’t win them all around but ...

Nice copy and paste. Capitalism works on companies making profits. The courses are awarded after a tendering process. They are mystery shopped and revalidated regularly. Their whole aim is to refresh, update drivers’ knowledge and bring about driver behavioural change. Companies make a profit, rooms get hired, trainers get paid, drivers broadly give positive feedback on the courses. Any original ideas? What’s your beef about speed enforcement? - let’s see if we can’t pick your arguments to pieces one by one.

... or decide where the cameras are?

Please let us know which individuals are raking it in ...

This is the case in Paris. order, drink at the bar, one price. drink at a table inside, a higher price drink outside at table, a higher price still.

“Time to secure a child in the car” will not be considered. When appealing through POPLA, look for them to itemise the elements of their invoice. Your best bet is to challenge their itemised invoice with the words, “it cannot be a genuine pre-estimate of loss” - it worked for me.

Let’s add some facts ... ”lamps considered ...” good places to affix wreaths to ”most travel at 60-90” ??????? ”at the 60-70 end” what road are you thinking of? “most ... rural ... NSL ... single-carriageway”. - yes and it is on these roads that close to 60% of road fatalities happen, so replicating those conditions maybe isn’t the way to go. Armco

The truth, of course, is that SCC have much bigger fish to fry (a long list of road/route inprovenent projects more pressing) and very limited funds that don’t go far enough. You’ll have to live with your obvious irritation at being delayed a few moments (or are you driving at 50 anyway with little chance of a speeding ticket?) and get used to the fact that the limit will not increase until they find a budget for the ARMCO even though SCC agree with you that the limit could be 50.

I don’t understand how you can put a left-wing/right-wing slant on the argument. - I haven’t checked but my guess is that Liverpool counts itself as Labour heartland (MP- and Council-wise) - all Councils of all political colours face the same problems of congestion, air quality and KSI’s. In any intervention that they make to deal with one or all of these, there are bound to be “winners and losers” AND what they do today may be undone by a subsequent administration such is the cyclical and pendulum nature of politics, “the art of the possible” - note it is not a science. As for virtue signalling - this is a nice but sneery phrase that belittles the aspirations of politicians who set out, we should imagine, to do good. I haven’t yet given up hoping that someone in power has such aspirations.

I haven’t read the whole thread so can’t comnent on what they have done in Liverpool (with bus lanes?) SCC have changed and done away with some bus lanes and have installed others elsewhere. That’s the nature of stuff: things get modelled, planned, installed, reviewed and altered. What doesn’t change is the direction of travel in population growth, increased vehicle usage, higher levels of congestion and poorer air quality. Councils intervene to mitigate the worst effects, sometimes effectively, other times not so effectively. Making an “anti-car” claim is simplistic and facile.

Yes, indeed. They are anti-car in the sense that they and every other Council are trying to get more of us on foot, on bike and in public transport. London leads the way (and others are copying/will copy) with a target of 80% of all private journeys to be (sustainably) on foot, bike or public transport by 2041. Nottingham, similarly, nudges behavioural change by charging employers for allowing their employees a parking space at work. Etc etc. Wake up, it’s not just SCC that are anti-car - that’s just another lazy cliché-ed beef.

Don’t ignore a private parking company’s invoice. Ignoring it use to be ok (years ago) but the parking companies organised themselves a legal compromise (if we do this ...). Ignoring it could end up with a CCJ against you and a drop in your credit rating. First stage is to appeal - google it, follow the appeal instructions on their invoice (within the time they allow you - maybe you have already missed that boat if the debt collecting agency is involved?) What you are looking to achieve is a breakdown of the charged amount. Your reply: “this is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss” - that’s it. I won on behalf of my daughter years ago. See here: https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/genuine-pre-estimate-of-loss/

This thread with almost identical beefs and arguments happened on SF in 2009. Digging back into that thread threw up something that confirmed the why’s and wherefore’s of the 40 limit: ” The 40mph speed limit was put in place because of a signal controlled crossing facility halfway along the route for cattle crossing between Grange Farm and fields either side of the new road. The need for the cattle crossing has subsequently been removed, however a proposal by the local Road Safety Team to raise the speed limit was prevented by the need to protect the lighting columns along the route with safety barrier. I.e. since the Council has never found a budget for Armco around the lights, the limit stays at 40.