Speed Limits

[WiseOwl182 10]

1 hour ago, DT Ralge said:

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assertion - so that you can’t be accused of making unsubstantiated assertions, what advancements make the speed limits outdated?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. 

 

He probably means better brakes, abs, airbags, crumple zones, etc.

 

All the while, speed limits only seem to go down. There are several examples in Sheffield where the speed limit is simply too low, and gets ignored by what can be observed as a majority of drivers.

[Pyrotequila 403]

On 18/03/2019 at 22:01, WiseOwl182 said:

Yes, and Bochum Parkway up to 50 or 60 too.

 

But only the part between the roundabout and Norton Avenue?

The rest is through built up areas.

[DT Ralge 10]

2 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

He probably means better brakes, abs, airbags, crumple zones, etc.

 

All the while, speed limits only seem to go down. There are several examples in Sheffield where the speed limit is simply too low, and gets ignored by what can be observed as a majority of drivers.

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. 

Edited March 20, 2019 by DT Ralge

[WiseOwl182 10]

46 minutes ago, DT Ralge said:

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. 

Yet still there are many roads in Sheffield that could safely have higher limits.

 

 

1 hour ago, Pyrotequila said:

 

But only the part between the roundabout and Norton Avenue?

The rest is through built up areas.

Yes, only the bit that people drive along at 60mph anyway.

[DT Ralge 10]

6 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Yet still there are many roads in Sheffield that could safely have higher limits.

 

 

Yes, only the bit that people drive along at 60mph anyway.

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?

Edited March 21, 2019 by DT Ralge

[Cyclone 10]

The A57 heading out of Sheffield to the ladybower could have a 60 limit.

The report commissioned by the SCC concluded and quite clearly said that there were no reasons or grounds to reduce the limit.  So the council reduced it anyway.

It's not an accident prone stretch of road, it never was, the only possible grounds I can see for reduction would be pollution, but it doesn't suffer from poor air quality.

10 hours ago, DT Ralge said:

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. 

The most modern of cars (last 5 years perhaps) have pedestrian safety features though don't they.  Pop up bonnets which in effect DO offer a crumple zone to pedestrians.  Bumper designs aimed to direct pedestrians up, rather than under, etc...

[Guest]

On 20/03/2019 at 08:26, Cyclone said:

That's actually a 30/40 limit though for a lot of it.

Yes, but I was making the point about the junctions rather than the speed limit.

[Cyclone 10]

Just now, probedb said:

Yes, but I was making the point about the junctions rather than the speed limit.

Ok, well, yes, it's a busy inner urban ring road, with many entries, exits in short spaces of time and distance.  If you don't know already where you are going it can be pretty difficult to navigate.

[Cyclone 10]

14 hours ago, DT Ralge said:

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. 

 

The motorway speed limit for example was set when the Ford Anglia was a modern car.

It had cross ply tyres, drum brakes all around, nobody had invented braking assistance of any kind.  It was capable (brand new) of 73mph.  The steering was loose and wobbly, the windscreen wipers were poor.

So, 70, basically driving it flat out, was probably dangerous and mildly terrifying.

 

Today, even the most cheap and cheerful super mini is a far superior car.  And the most common (still the Ford Focus), is even more improved.

 

Drivers don't react any faster, but the cars steer better, turn better, start and go better, stop (much) better (in all conditions).  The tyres and brakes work MUCH better.  Some of them come with radar to keep distance to the car in front (okay, that's not common yet, it will be though, eventually).

 

Motorways are busier, but given that we now have variable limits I personally would like to see the limit go up to 80, when the traffic and weather conditions are appropriate.

[DT Ralge 10]

11 hours ago, Cyclone said:

The motorway speed limit for example was set when the Ford Anglia was a modern car.

It had cross ply tyres, drum brakes all around, nobody had invented braking assistance of any kind.  It was capable (brand new) of 73mph.  The steering was loose and wobbly, the windscreen wipers were poor.

So, 70, basically driving it flat out, was probably dangerous and mildly terrifying.

 

Today, even the most cheap and cheerful super mini is a far superior car.  And the most common (still the Ford Focus), is even more improved.

 

Drivers don't react any faster, but the cars steer better, turn better, start and go better, stop (much) better (in all conditions).  The tyres and brakes work MUCH better.  Some of them come with radar to keep distance to the car in front (okay, that's not common yet, it will be though, eventually).

 

Motorways are busier, but given that we now have variable limits I personally would like to see the limit go up to 80, when the traffic and weather conditions are appropriate.

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. 

Edited March 21, 2019 by DT Ralge

[WiseOwl182 10]

15 hours ago, DT Ralge said:

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?

Examples that I am aware of include (at least stretches of):

 

- Bochum Parkway

- Penistone Road

- Sheffield Parkway

- Ringinglow Rd

 

Why? Because the speed limit is just too low for the road conditions.

 

[Cyclone 10]

2 hours ago, DT Ralge said:

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. 

Couldn't disagree with that really, some enforcement of safe space, lane discipline, those would be nice (although not prosecuting someone when a guy in front just pulled into their braking gap would be difficult to achieve).

And yes, vary the speed up and down as appropriate, 50, 60, 70, 80, perhaps even 90...  Although the pollution argument gets stronger as speed goes up...  But then again we directly tax fuel, so drive less efficiently means pay more tax which can be used to offset pollution.