Do you think 15mph speedlimits would help reduce accidents?

[The PIT 10]

Okay how about at 10 mph limit then a 5 mph.

Then we'll have to stop people running as they run into someone walking and cause an injury.

[Eric Arthur 10]

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

 

Nearly completely wrong but not quite. Higher speeds increase the volume of road space that a given amount of traffic occupies.

 

Conversely, lower speeds decrease the volume of roads space that a given amount of traffic occupies.

 

You should be able to work out the rest about why lower speeds can be very good for everyone unless you happen to be a Mr Toad.

[nomoney 10]

speed does not kill its the driver of the vehicle,on a program on tv a lady driver killed a pedestrian her speed was 20mph who walked out in to the road this was in a quite village so, you have as much chance of being killed by a cyclist and they are not insured,a vehicle as to pay road tax and be insured and be in good condition to use the road and so should cycles,people to-day have no road sense and think they can just walk out in to the road, and the oncoming vehicle should stop for them the blame lies with the idiots,who work for the councils and the loony left who advise the Government,most of these do and not drive.

[srt2016 10]

Nearly completely wrong but not quite. Higher speeds increase the volume of road space that a given amount of traffic occupies.

 

Conversely, lower speeds decrease the volume of roads space that a given amount of traffic occupies.

 

You should be able to work out the rest about why lower speeds can be very good for everyone unless you happen to be a Mr Toad.

 

Getting vehicles from A to B quicker REDUCES the vehicles on the road EASING conjestion,unless you think having vehicles on the roads longer can possibly change that.I know some are easily persuaded otherwise but common sense prevails.

If going to work at the speed limits takes half hour,reducing the speed limits by half is going to increase the time taken isn't it?

 

When vehicles are allowed to travel at what they feel comfortable at then they space out.When you reduce that speed artificially then they tend to bunch and drive closer.Closer increases the chances of accidents,and also reduces visability increasing the chances of a pedestrian etc not being seen as early.

The artificial conjestion in this country is costing us ALL massively in not just cost,but time.

[onewheeldave 22]

speed does not kill its the driver of the vehicle,on a program on tv a lady driver killed a pedestrian her speed was 20mph who walked out in to the road this was in a quite village so, you have as much chance of being killed by a cyclist and they are not insured,a vehicle as to pay road tax and be insured and be in good condition to use the road and so should cycles,people to-day have no road sense and think they can just walk out in to the road, and the oncoming vehicle should stop for them the blame lies with the idiots,who work for the councils and the loony left who advise the Government,most of these do and not drive.

 

No you don't. As a cycle is of much lower mass than a car, the chances of being killed by a cyclist are very much lower than being killed by a car.

 

Road tax doesn't exist and cyclists pay as much emissions tax as any car of the same status.

[Eric Arthur 10]

Getting vehicles from A to B quicker REDUCES the vehicles on the road EASING conjestion,unless you think having vehicles on the roads longer can possibly change that.I know some are easily persuaded otherwise but common sense prevails.

If going to work at the speed limits takes half hour,reducing the speed limits by half is going to increase the time taken isn't it?

 

When vehicles are allowed to travel at what they feel comfortable at then they space out.When you reduce that speed artificially then they tend to bunch and drive closer.Closer increases the chances of accidents,and also reduces visability increasing the chances of a pedestrian etc not being seen as early.

The artificial conjestion in this country is costing us ALL massively in not just cost,but time.

I highlighted the parts that you got right. The rest is rubbish. I hope that helps.

[DT Ralge 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.

 

Plain wrong.

Only one-fifth of (Stats19, police-involved) injury collisions happen on rural roads.

This one-fifth produces more than one-half of all road fatalities.

 

"The larger proportion": three-quarters of injury collisions happen on urban roads. These generate 40+% of all fatalities.

 

Any google search along the lines of "reduced limits and reductions in incidents and injury" will return a whole set of research that counters your favourite assertion.

 

---------- Post added 15-02-2016 at 21:13 ----------

 

Getting vehicles from A to B quicker REDUCES the vehicles on the road EASING conjestion,unless you think having vehicles on the roads longer can possibly change that.I know some are easily persuaded otherwise but common sense prevails.

If going to work at the speed limits takes half hour,reducing the speed limits by half is going to increase the time taken isn't it?

 

When vehicles are allowed to travel at what they feel comfortable at then they space out.When you reduce that speed artificially then they tend to bunch and drive closer.Closer increases the chances of accidents,and also reduces visability increasing the chances of a pedestrian etc not being seen as early.

The artificial conjestion in this country is costing us ALL massively in not just cost,but time.

 

Lower speeds mean that more vehicles can be accommodated in the same road space safely.

In my experience the motorways around have flowed more convincingly when 50 has been enforced within the roadworks. Fewer incidents have happened because fewer drivers have any need or desire to switch lane, speed up or slow down.

Drivers' expectations are controlled by the, admittedly, tedious 50 sections and the outcomes are better.

 

"Travel at what they feel comfortable" smacks of "driving to the conditions" - an argument I have dismantled regularly since there is massive ignorance and disinterest/complacency about even the basics of tyres.

[Cyclone 10]

Nearly completely wrong but not quite. Higher speeds increase the volume of road space that a given amount of traffic occupies.

 

Conversely, lower speeds decrease the volume of roads space that a given amount of traffic occupies.

 

You should be able to work out the rest about why lower speeds can be very good for everyone unless you happen to be a Mr Toad.

 

Extending your argument then, if we travelled at 1mph road volumes would be maximised.

 

Complete nonsense of course, whilst the road volume for each vehicle is minimised as you claim, the length of time each vehicle is on the road is increased. Reducing speed limits could increase congestion.

 

---------- Post added 15-02-2016 at 22:04 ----------

 

Plain wrong.

Only one-fifth of (Stats19, police-involved) injury collisions happen on rural roads.

This one-fifth produces more than one-half of all road fatalities.

 

"The larger proportion": three-quarters of injury collisions happen on urban roads. These generate 40+% of all fatalities.

 

Any google search along the lines of "reduced limits and reductions in incidents and injury" will return a whole set of research that counters your favourite assertion.

I don't have a favourite assertion, and you're quite right, I got the figures wrong.

I'm happy to look them up and change my view.

 

In 2014, the majority of injured casualties occurred on built-up roads (72 per cent of total casualties). However, the majority of fatalities occurred on non built-up roads (just over a half).

So more casualties on urban roads, more deaths on rural ones.

 

Lower speeds mean that more vehicles can be accommodated in the same road space safely.

They also mean that journeys take longer, so more vehicles are trying to use the space available.

In my experience the motorways around have flowed more convincingly when 50 has been enforced within the roadworks. Fewer incidents have happened because fewer drivers have any need or desire to switch lane, speed up or slow down.

Drivers' expectations are controlled by the, admittedly, tedious 50 sections and the outcomes are better.

 

"Travel at what they feel comfortable" smacks of "driving to the conditions" - an argument I have dismantled regularly since there is massive ignorance and disinterest/complacency about even the basics of tyres.

This is an argument for better training, including about tyres.

 

50 mph limits work most effectively when traffic is heavy.

Travel when traffic is light and there is no advantage to travelling slowly.

 

---------- Post added 15-02-2016 at 22:05 ----------

 

To quote the RAC again

 

 

Do more deaths occur on country roads than on motorways?

 

Yes. 60 per cent of all fatalities occur on country roads

 

Three people die each day on average on country roads and the number of people killed on country roads is nearly 10 times higher than on motorways. In 2014, there were 1,040 fatalities and 9,051 serious injuries on country roads. A third of the fatalities occurred on a bend.

 

---------- Post added 15-02-2016 at 22:06 ----------

 

And since we were talking about 30 limits and pedestrians

 

For accidents where a pedestrian was injured or killed, pedestrian failed to look properly was reported in 59 per cent of accidents, and pedestrian careless, reckless or in a hurry was reported in 29 per cent of accidents.

[Eric Arthur 10]

Extending your argument then, if we travelled at 1mph road volumes would be maximised.

You're finally getting it.

 

Complete nonsense of course, whilst the road volume for each vehicle is minimised as you claim, the length of time each vehicle is on the road is increased. Reducing speed limits could increase congestion.

Then you go and spoil it.

[Cyclone 10]

You can do a thought experiment if you want. (I'd recommend using a spreadsheet).

 

A certain amount of road, 1km maybe.

A number of people within a defined length of time who want to drive down it.

Define the amount of space a car needs at a given speed. Work out how long it will be on the road at a given speed.

Plug in a whole bunch of speeds, between 1km/h and 100km/h, see what pops out.

 

I haven't done this, but I think it would be interesting. I might try it now.

 

How do we define the space required, the breaking distance according to the highway code? Seems fair.

 

---------- Post added 15-02-2016 at 23:14 ----------

 

It's interesting. Peak capacity comes at 30kmh, assuming that people can really drive continuously with a 11 metre breaking gap to the car in front.

I expect if people drove like robots, this rather simplistic modelling would actually be true, for a single road. (Although if they drove like robots the braking distances could be decreased as the reaction time would be far better).

 

Point proven anyway, below that speed road capacity drops again.

 

Even more interesting is that the capacity below 30 didn't drop until I included the length of the cars in the equation... I started off by just calculating the breaking gap (0.2metres at 1kmph). Which meant 5000 cars could squeeze onto that 1km of road.

They can't of course, cars themselves have a length. The peak capacity is limited by the size of the cars at low speed, not by the braking distance. At 1kmph the cars can be bumper to bumper practically, they fill the road, 240 of them.

At 30 kmph the cars need an 11metre gap, but they finish their journey in 2 minutes, so the capacity is just over 2000 in an hour, if they fill the road and maintain an 11 metre braking gap.

 

And as you'd expect, if the road isn't running at capacity, individuals can make the journey more quickly by going faster. 1200 people could do the journey at 100 kmph in just 0.6 minutes. But that would be the maximum capacity for the road at that speed.

 

Altering the road length makes no difference of course, the braking gap calculation does as does the average car size, so does the braking gap, but not by as much as I expected. Make people drive aggressively close and the best speed increases to 35kmph.

 

Anyway, I thought that was interesting. It's very simplistic, it takes no account of junctions or anything like that, which is what really limits the road network, not tarmac space at all. Cars can't mysteriously teleport in and away from this example road.

[1978 14]

If all vehicles are parked bumper to bumper you get more on the road. Try making them stay as close as that at 100 mph and it's lethal. That's why they couple up the trucks on trains, and make the trains keep a mile or more apart.

 

30 years or so ago I drove to the South of France a few times in August. 100 mph for short bursts, then anchors on and stop for a few minutes, then off again like a rocket. Fortunately we avoided accidents, but the potential was great. I was younger then! If everyone had stuck to 50, 60 or 70 we'd have had a better chance of keeping moving, more safely and probably got there a little quicker.

 

I now drive on the A14 and M11 quite frequently. Since the average speed cameras have been introduced on the A14 the accident rate has reduced. It still grid locks frequently, and accidents do occur, but they're probably not as severe. The M11 tends to proceed at 56 mph due to the large number of rolling road blockers.

 

The high casualty rate on rural roads is fairly obvious to explain. Cars travelling in opposite directions may only be doing 50, but their impact speed in a head on collision would be 100. On a dual carriageway they'd be far less likely to hit something coming the other way. Rural roads have bends, ditches, trees and unexpected humps and hollows - plus floods, leaves, icy patches and mud to contend with.

 

A limit of 15 is going too far. Some drivers are more dangerous than others. Insurers know who they are. Unfortunately many of the worst drivers are also very happy to drive unlicensed, disqualified and uninsured. Until they're actually caught committing an offence they can get away with it for months and years. Sadly, the very worst do get caught, and often following accidents. It doesn't seem to stop them.

 

We all make minor mistakes as drivers, motor cyclists, cyclists and pedestrians. We all make corrections and usually avoid accidents. Often our corrections ensure another road user avoids an accident they might well have caused. And sometimes we know we've been lucky that someone else was alert and saved us from an accident.

 

Speed limits don't stop accidents. They do ensure more motorists go more slowly more often, thus ensuring any accident is less severe in effect.

 

Yes, we should drive according to the conditions, and the vehicle being driven. Slower when it's wet, even slower when icy. In the US in the 1960s I recall signs showing one speed in daylight, but showing a lower speed in headlights at night. Only a total idiot would take a series of Z bends on a national speed limit road section at 60. (OK, in the Monte Carlo Rally when closed to other traffic you might!)

 

There are many things that would improve road safety better than a 15 mph limit. Speed Awareness Courses are good, but qualification is patchy. I felt better for doing one after almost 50 years of driving, but was concerned to hear other participants hadn't known some basic aspects of driving (e.g. What qualifies as a dual carriageway? What's the national speed limit?! Meanings of road signs.). I see no objection to a brief mini test every 10 years, particularly if it included assessment of eye sight and reaction times. Every 5 years from 65, and maybe annually after 85. Some drivers of those ages are safer, and still as sharp, as some under 30.

 

Daily practice can make a big difference at any age. I'm pleased that my family have avoided major accidents - so far, fingers well crossed. Nobody should be complacent. Tomorrow it could be me - or you! Drive carefully.

[srt2016 10]

Plain wrong.

Only one-fifth of (Stats19, police-involved) injury collisions happen on rural roads.

This one-fifth produces more than one-half of all road fatalities.

 

"The larger proportion": three-quarters of injury collisions happen on urban roads. These generate 40+% of all fatalities.

 

Any google search along the lines of "reduced limits and reductions in incidents and injury" will return a whole set of research that counters your favourite assertion.

 

---------- Post added 15-02-2016 at 21:13 ----------

 

 

Lower speeds mean that more vehicles can be accommodated in the same road space safely.

In my experience the motorways around have flowed more convincingly when 50 has been enforced within the roadworks. Fewer incidents have happened because fewer drivers have any need or desire to switch lane, speed up or slow down.

Drivers' expectations are controlled by the, admittedly, tedious 50 sections and the outcomes are better.

 

"Travel at what they feel comfortable" smacks of "driving to the conditions" - an argument I have dismantled regularly since there is massive ignorance and disinterest/complacency about even the basics of tyres.

 

I think you need a bigger window in your office so you can get a better grip on reality what actually happens on the roads.