Do you think 15mph speedlimits would help reduce accidents?

[sgtkate 10]

I remember when that data was first published that it did not appear to be clear how much of the improvement was due to the variable speed limits and how much was due to including the hard shoulder as a lane.

 

When I've used smart motorways I think they do appear to work - although my views are totally anecdotal. When its very busy or there has been an accident, the traffic is still at walking pace. But what has changed, I think, is that there is no longer the stop, then go again back up to 60 or 70, then grind to a halt again, all without any obvious cause (such as an accident or breakdown). The adjustable speed limits does appear to be stopping this high speed/low speed, stop/start driving due to cars trying to exceed the optimum speed for the number of vehicles- which was one of its aims.

 

Anecdotally, I feel the same. I have family in Somerset so I often drive the M1/M42/M5 route and often at around 6pm on a Friday, joyous. The best part of the journey is nearly always the M42 and whilst the speed limits are normally on at 50mph, you feel as though you are getting places faster than doing a mile at 70 then a mile at 20 etc. Improves fuel economy too. But whether it is actually quicker or just a perception I can't truthfully say.

[Eater Sundae 12]

speed limits only work if they are enforced and except main roads its difficult,

 

I'm a fan of the current 20 limits that are appearing in built up areas where pedestrians are at particular risk.

 

Even without enforcement, some people sticking to the limit will force others to stick to it also. Although those following may feel frustrated by this hold up, "right" will be on the side of the person sticking to the limit. I think (hope) that some of this will rub off onto those who would normally have driven faster.

 

There is the opportunity for group behaviour to change. Not perfect but an improvement, and so worth trying in my opinion.

 

Also, in the event of an accident, if it can be proven that someone was speeding (eg by CCTV or skid marks), then this could be part of any subsequent charge. Not ideal as it didn't stop the accident in the first place, but still better than nothing if it helps to keep bad drivers off the road.

[Eric Arthur 10]

I've not found 20 mph limits to be an issue either. Lately I've been driving around Crookes and most of the side roads there are only comfortable at 13-14 mph so 15mph limit wouldn't be a problem.

[Cyclone 10]

I remember when that data was first published that it did not appear to be clear how much of the improvement was due to the variable speed limits and how much was due to including the hard shoulder as a lane.

 

When I've used smart motorways I think they do appear to work - although my views are totally anecdotal. When its very busy or there has been an accident, the traffic is still at walking pace. But what has changed, I think, is that there is no longer the stop, then go again back up to 60 or 70, then grind to a halt again, all without any obvious cause (such as an accident or breakdown). The adjustable speed limits does appear to be stopping this high speed/low speed, stop/start driving due to cars trying to exceed the optimum speed for the number of vehicles- which was one of its aims.

 

There are academic studies which show how the reduced speed limit reduces bunching and ultimately increases capacity (compared to the basic speed limit with equally heavy traffic).

Of course when traffic is light, individual journeys are faster if vehicles can travel at a higher speed.

[Alcoblog 10]

I've not found 20 mph limits to be an issue either. Lately I've been driving around Crookes and most of the side roads there are only comfortable at 13-14 mph so 15mph limit wouldn't be a problem.

 

Precisely!

Any responsible driver would feel it unsafe to do more than the speed parameters you suggest. So far as I'm concerned, hardly anyone approaches 20mph. I've only seen one car doing more than that all day, a boy racer in an idiotmobile (16 volt Astra) who was doing about 40.

Signs won't make a jot of difference to dolts like this (karma will), so why the Council sees fit to bung 20mph signs on virtually every side street round here, unless they have loads of spare money seems ridiculous. How much do they waste on supplying and erecting a sign for god's sake? Not only the cost, but they just add to the rest of the extraneous, unsightly street furniture.

Idiotic SCC yet again, although you can bet their excuse will be 'directive 840, subsection MCVIII, paragraph ninety four, Council discretionary point' in some government paper for inept road planners, handed down from Herr Raissing in Brussels, as a get out clause.

 

There's no need for signs, or speed limits whatsoever. Common sense dictates, as well as Charles Darwin and his amusing awards. Everything is aimed for the weakest link, whilst the majority have to suffer for it. Same goes for speed humps.

[Eric Arthur 10]

Precisely!

Any responsible driver would feel it unsafe to do more than the speed parameters you suggest. So far as I'm concerned, hardly anyone approaches 20mph. I've only seen one car doing more than that all day, a boy racer in an idiotmobile (16 volt Astra) who was doing about 40.

Signs won't make a jot of difference to dolts like this (karma will), so why the Council sees fit to bung 20mph signs on virtually every side street round here, unless they have loads of spare money seems ridiculous. How much do they waste on supplying and erecting a sign for god's sake? Not only the cost, but they just add to the rest of the extraneous, unsightly street furniture.

Idiotic SCC yet again, although you can bet their excuse will be 'directive 840, subsection MCVIII, paragraph ninety four, Council discretionary point' in some government paper for inept road planners, handed down from Herr Raissing in Brussels, as a get out clause.

 

There's no need for signs, or speed limits whatsoever. Common sense dictates, as well as Charles Darwin and his amusing awards. Everything is aimed for the weakest link, whilst the majority have to suffer for it. Same goes for speed humps.

 

Have you seen what that council in Norfolk wants to do by removing the white lines sot hat people have to interact instead of relying on the rules of the lines? That sounds like an interesting idea too.

[jezzyjj 10]

There's no need for signs, or speed limits whatsoever. Common sense dictates, as well as Charles Darwin and his amusing awards. Everything is aimed for the weakest link, whilst the majority have to suffer for it. Same goes for speed humps.

Common sense is anything but common. The reason 20mph limits [or any limits] are being put in place is because people simply do not drive at sensible speed on such roads. Signs increase social pressure on most people to drive more responsibly. The majority are most certainly not suffering in any way, because everyone benefits if people are being encouraged to drive more sensibly on residential roads.

 

---------- Post added 10-02-2016 at 23:07 ----------

 

Have you seen what that council in Norfolk wants to do by removing the white lines sot hat people have to interact instead of relying on the rules of the lines? That sounds like an interesting idea too.

Removing lines, pavement edges, fences and other 'safety' features has been proven to reduce accidents when employed in numerous places. The reason behind this is the safer you make something seem, the more risks people will take in that location.

Removing speed limits is not part of this though.

[JBFox 10]

Am I allowed to answer this even though it was aimed at Cyclone....yes I have been run over, bloody hurt too. Guess what? Speeding driver hit me while I was on a zebra crossing. He stopped just long enough to shout 'are you alright love?' before speeding off again. Now, not saying that accident was purely down to his speed, clearly the driver was an utter tool. No speed cameras outside the old Foundry pub in Wincobank so doubtful if a 15mph speed limit would have changed anything.

 

I would have taken him to court and drained every penny out of him!!! The problem is drivers forget that they are LEGALLY required to give pedestrians priority on zebra crossings. We have a zebra crossing on Sandygate Road near where I live and so many cars just speed past it... I sometimes wonder if people bribe the examiner when they take their driving test!

[Alcoblog 10]

I would have taken him to court and drained every penny out of him!!! The problem is drivers forget that they are LEGALLY required to give pedestrians priority on zebra crossings. We have a zebra crossing on Sandygate Road near where I live and so many cars just speed past it... I sometimes wonder if people bribe the examiner when they take their driving test!

 

It's a sad indictment of our time when one's first thoughts of suitable punishment is to take all the money off the transgressor. It says a lot about the person who makes such a remark.

Why take ALL their money? Do they deserve to live in penury for the rest of their (now) miserable existence, the knock on effects to their family, loss of friends etc, just because someone who doesn't even know the full facts deems it so?

 

As an extra, although I haven't actually been 'run over' by a car like sgtkate, I have been hit by one, sustaining a broken ankle and cuts and bruises. However, it was an accident, the driver was plainly shocked, which I took as sufficient punishment. I took no action. I heal quickly, memories (mental anguish) of hitting (quite fast) a pedestran and causing injury, last forever. Punishment enough.

[JBFox 10]

The driver could have killed him/her. I think a custodial sentence would also be appropriate. As for driving off...well that is just despicable. I myself ride a bicycle as well as being a pedestrian and I ALWAYS stop my bike at zebra crossings and give way to pedestrians...and I also have to concentrate on generating power to the bike... Car drivers have no excuse...I'm astounded that you defend such negligence.

[Cyclone 10]

I would have taken him to court and drained every penny out of him!!! The problem is drivers forget that they are LEGALLY required to give pedestrians priority on zebra crossings. We have a zebra crossing on Sandygate Road near where I live and so many cars just speed past it... I sometimes wonder if people bribe the examiner when they take their driving test!

 

Difficult to take someone to court when they've driven off and you don't even had a registration number...

You could (probably should) report it as a hit and run though.

[Alcoblog 10]

The driver could have killed him/her. I think a custodial sentence would also be appropriate. As for driving off...well that is just despicable. I myself ride a bicycle as well as being a pedestrian and I ALWAYS stop my bike at zebra crossings and give way to pedestrians...and I also have to concentrate on generating power to the bike... Car drivers have no excuse...I'm astounded that you defend such negligence.

 

So now you're basing your inappropriate fiscal punishment upon the supposition that the driver 'could have killed', rather than the fact that they obviously didn't (unless sgtkate is posting from beyond the grave without actually realising they've passed over?.)

 

Accidents happen … it's a fact. Be they hitsuzen or guzen is only anyone's guess, but I suppose, at a push, what with you being so litigious and all that, you could make a case against the progenitor of the hitsuzen scenario, be they supreme being, or something else of that order.

 

Or you could just stop being such a drama queen.