Do you think 15mph speedlimits would help reduce accidents?

[philyyy 10]

Is it as simple as that?

 

Yes, it is that simple.

 

---------- Post added 12-02-2016 at 12:23 ----------

 

I believe over in the States jaywalking is an offence. Maybe we should have the same law here.

 

Angel1.

 

It has to be one of the silliest laws around. I'd feel annoyed that the powers that be don't trust citizens to cross a road. It isn't that tricky.

[Eric Arthur 10]

It really doesn't matter,you don't pull out of a junction till its clear.

 

Except that people do pull out, and if the motorcycle is only travelling at 15 mph everyone is much better off if they have an accident, and the accident is more easily avoided in the first place because the idiot driver has more time to see them or react than if the motorcycle was travelling at 30mph.

But the answer is... its not its in the garage

Safest place for it

[sgtkate 10]

No. It looks like the implication might be that the cause of these 143 accidents is slow speed. That's why I asked.

 

That's what I'm trying to understand. If it includes all the situations of people pulling out at low speed into the path of another vehicle, then surely there'd be a lot more than 143.

 

Edit. Are there 143 cases where the cause was someone driving slowly such that had they been driving more quickly, then the accident would not have happened?

 

If someone pulled out onto a motorway at 20mph and a car hit them from behind would you say that accident was caused by slow driving? Trying to think this one through in my head what would be the logical allocation of blame...you could blame the driver who hit them as they should/could have seen the slow car joining the motorway and avoided them, but equally doing 20mph on a motorway must be regarded as dangerous driving so the fault should lie with them.

[srt2016 10]

If someone pulled out onto a motorway at 20mph and a car hit them from behind would you say that accident was caused by slow driving? Trying to think this one through in my head what would be the logical allocation of blame...you could blame the driver who hit them as they should/could have seen the slow car joining the motorway and avoided them, but equally doing 20mph on a motorway must be regarded as dangerous driving so the fault should lie with them.

 

I know some struggle to understand things but if you pull into the path of another car and it hits you,no matter what speed its doing,it is YOU caused it.

 

Slip roads onto motorways are the same speed limit as the motorway for a very good reason.By the time you get to the end you should be travelling the same speed as the flow of traffic and with a touch of nouse, slip into the flow without affecting it.

That isn't what many 'slow' drivers do though,they travel down the slip roads at slow speed then when they cant join because of the difference in speeds they then treat the lines at the bottom of the slip road like a give way and make what should be a safe transition into a very dangerous one for not only themselves but vehicles following them.

[Eater Sundae 12]

If someone pulled out onto a motorway at 20mph and a car hit them from behind would you say that accident was caused by slow driving? Trying to think this one through in my head what would be the logical allocation of blame...you could blame the driver who hit them as they should/could have seen the slow car joining the motorway and avoided them, but equally doing 20mph on a motorway must be regarded as dangerous driving so the fault should lie with them.

 

Maybe. I'm not sure, that's why I raised it. In the case of the driver coming onto the motorway at 20. The fault is with the driver entering the motorway because they are entering it when it is not clear. (There may be some contributory blame on the driver already there for not paying attention and reacting, depending on how much time they had). The speed (or more specifically the difference in speed) may be a contributory factor, but it is not the cause. The cause was changing lanes when someone was approaching in the other lane such that they collided. Had the motorway been clear, then 20 mph would not have been a danger - the cause was that they moved onto the motorway when someone else was already there and needed the space.

 

In general travelling at 20 mph on a motorway creates a hazard, but once the 20 mph vehicle is there, the onus is on anyone coming along at 70 (or whatever speed) to safely react to this hazard, either by slowing down or changing lanes and overtaking. If they cannot safely respond when a vehicle is travelling at 20 mph (ie with a closing speed of 50 mph), then what will happen if a vehicle is broken down (and the closing speed becomes 70 mph).

 

This is even more the case on non-motorway roads, where drivers can expect to come across slow moving vehicles (eg street cleaners, dustbin wagons, horse and carts, invalid scooters etc) as well as parked cars. If other drivers are expected to safely cope with vehicles that are designed to move slowly, then why can't they react equally safely to a car driven at well below the normal speed.

 

In the case of speeding, it is easy (I think) to find situations where excess speed is the cause. For example, travelling at 60 mph around a corner that can only be taken at 30 or below. In addition, there are lots of situations where speed is a contributory factor - ie had the person been travelling slower there would have been more time and opportunity to react avoid the accident that was someone else's fault.

 

However, in the case of going too slowly, I cannot think of an example where the slow speed is the actual cause of the accident, let alone 143 of them.

[sgtkate 10]

Maybe. I'm not sure, that's why I raised it. In the case of the driver coming onto the motorway at 20. The fault is with the driver entering the motorway because they are entering it when it is not clear. (There may be some contributory blame on the driver already there for not paying attention and reacting, depending on how much time they had). The speed (or more specifically the difference in speed) may be a contributory factor, but it is not the cause. The cause was changing lanes when someone was approaching in the other lane such that they collided. Had the motorway been clear, then 20 mph would not have been a danger - the cause was that they moved onto the motorway when someone else was already there and needed the space.

 

In general travelling at 20 mph on a motorway creates a hazard, but once the 20 mph vehicle is there, the onus is on anyone coming along at 70 (or whatever speed) to safely react to this hazard, either by slowing down or changing lanes and overtaking. If they cannot safely respond when a vehicle is travelling at 20 mph (ie with a closing speed of 50 mph), then what will happen if a vehicle is broken down (and the closing speed becomes 70 mph).

 

This is even more the case on non-motorway roads, where drivers can expect to come across slow moving vehicles (eg street cleaners, dustbin wagons, horse and carts, invalid scooters etc) as well as parked cars. If other drivers are expected to safely cope with vehicles that are designed to move slowly, then why can't they react equally safely to a car driven at well below the normal speed.

 

In the case of speeding, it is easy (I think) to find situations where excess speed is the cause. For example, travelling at 60 mph around a corner that can only be taken at 30 or below. In addition, there are lots of situations where speed is a contributory factor - ie had the person been travelling slower there would have been more time and opportunity to react avoid the accident that was someone else's fault.

 

However, in the case of going too slowly, I cannot think of an example where the slow speed is the actual cause of the accident, let alone 143 of them.

 

I agree with your summary completely. I was just throwing out an example of where slow speed *might* have been the cause of an accident, but even in that case it's still not absolutely clear.

[Chelle-82 10]

Probably in areas such as Walkley or even Ecclesall road as you often see young people wandering into the road while they are on their mobile phones.

 

I know it may inconvenience some but surely it has to be better than seeing a sad faced pedestrian bouncing on your bonnet after you've accidently drove into that person.

 

To me it would make the roads safer for everyone

 

This....

 

Had me proper chuckling for about a minute

[Cyclone 10]

I know some struggle to understand things but if you pull into the path of another car and it hits you,no matter what speed its doing,it is YOU caused it.

 

Slip roads onto motorways are the same speed limit as the motorway for a very good reason.By the time you get to the end you should be travelling the same speed as the flow of traffic and with a touch of nouse, slip into the flow without affecting it.

That isn't what many 'slow' drivers do though,they travel down the slip roads at slow speed then when they cant join because of the difference in speeds they then treat the lines at the bottom of the slip road like a give way and make what should be a safe transition into a very dangerous one for not only themselves but vehicles following them.

 

For the sake of clarity it's worth noting that the lines at the bottom ARE give way lines.

[jezzyjj 10]

For the sake of clarity it's worth noting that the lines at the bottom ARE give way lines.

Also some slip roads have traffic lights on them too.

 

---------- Post added 12-02-2016 at 20:55 ----------

 

In general travelling at 20 mph on a motorway creates a hazard, but once the 20 mph vehicle is there, the onus is on anyone coming along at 70 (or whatever speed) to safely react to this hazard, either by slowing down or changing lanes and overtaking. If they cannot safely respond when a vehicle is travelling at 20 mph (ie with a closing speed of 50 mph), then what will happen if a vehicle is broken down (and the closing speed becomes 70 mph).

I have driven at 20mph on the motorway. Why? A couple of times because the fog was so thick, one couldn't see the next cat's eye in the road. I drove as far left as possible because despite the conditions, some complete morons were whizzing past at 70-80mph. The chance of such braindead speed merchants using the inside lane as they are meant to was slim because idiots who drive fast like that won't use the 'slow' lane. But even so I stayed close to the side. Thank god it was late at night and relatively quiet, it would have been carnage otherwise.

Seen similar morons overtaking slow moving traffic on inside lane on the pack ice covering the middle lane that had not yet been cleared off the road. Outside lane was a snow drift and it was still snowing heavily.

Edited February 12, 2016 by jezzyjj

[TheBlueDragon 10]

At what point does the law come off that all wheels must be removed from all vehicles to stop accidents

 

The idiots who keep lowering the speed limits need to have a word with themselves as there is no need for it. Look at Herries Rd, that is a nice long wide road with large gaps between the road and homes yet they lower it to 30. When does the camera arrive on that road?

 

If people don't learn how they cross the road then that is their own fault as its bloody obvious. Natural selection if you ask me

Edited February 13, 2016 by TheBlueDragon

[jezzyjj 10]

At what point does the law come off that all wheels must be removed from all vehicles to stop accidents

 

The idiots who keep lowering the speed limits need to have a word with themselves as there is no need for it. Look at Herries Rd, that is a nice long wide road with large gaps between the road and homes yet they lower it to 30. When does the camera arrive on that road?

 

If people don't learn how they cross the road then that is their own fault as its bloody obvious. Natural selection if you ask me

I totally agree, the thousands killed on the roads every year and the hundreds of thousands injured with some ending up crippled and in wheelchairs can only be a good thing. Such people obviously deserve to suffer. </sarcasm>

 

BTW speed limits are not just about safety but traffic flow. Make the main roads into city 50mph and you'll simply get gridlock when too much traffic gets to centre at the same time.

[Cyclone 10]

Higher speed limits won't increase the volume of traffic.

 

And whilst we're thinking about accidents and injuries, the larger proportion of them take place on rural roads and aren't speed related.

Reducing accidents is a laudable aim, but to just go around tinkering with (ie lowering) speed limits will have little to no effect on the accident or injury rate.