A risk analysis of speeding

all these points point back to the outdated driving test

why is there two levels of the test. standard and advanced.

why are new drivers not shown how to drive on motorways.

why are driving tests not carried out every 5years on everybody.

its not the speed that kills its the nut behind the wheel not observing whats going on around him and acting on it. when travaling at speed you are more attentive to your surroundings. when slower driving for long periods you are more distracted.

I have said before that I personally think that a small increase in the 70 limit on motorways could be accomodated with variable limits on motorways. I don't think that unlit sections at night would be a good idea for that though, as you still have to be able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear (ie avoid something stationary & unlit in the road, such as a broken down car in lane 3.)

That said there are other considerations as well with the setting of speed limits, not just safety.
Things such as noise pollution & emissions.
I believe the last time a speed limit increase was ruled out it was on the basis of noise pollution & recent government reports have suggested that enforcing our current motorway limits, rather than raising them, is important to help us meet our obligations to international treaties with regards to emission level controls.

I personally would rather see more focus to keep traffic flowing better within our current limits, than focus on raising them. After all a higher limit is no good if you are sat stationary in a jam.




Edited by livvy

spokey wrote: This is heading off topic again, so I'd like to bring the focus back to why an advanced driver and safety enthusiast is advocating that adherence to the speed limit is more important than demonstrably safer driving?

I don't agree that it is demonstrably safer in what you suggest.
Firstly as you move to match the speed of the faster traffic you move further away from the slower traffic.

What you gain on one side you lose on the other.

If we are going to have speed limits at all, they need to be enforced or they are pointless and I am certainly of the opinion that we are safer with them than without them.

From what I see of driving standards on our roads it is not safe to leave the decision on what is a safe maximum to people beyond our limits. The skill levels are not up to it.

Because the aim and thrust of the legislation & enforcement is to reduce the disparity by making people not go beyond the limits.

If that is not working sufficiently then perhaps the better option & thus one you would perhaps support in light of your evidence that it is safer without (or with minimal) disparity, would be to use a more efficient system of enforcement such as SPECS.

I have advocated SPECS as being a more effective camera system than GATSOs so perhaps that is the way to go. I believe they would be more effective at controling speed differentials over greater distances than current systems. They certainly have been in my experience of travelling through them.

That would seem to be the most sensible route to bringing lowest speed, closest to highest speed & with both closest to the median. More so than what you seem to suggest anyway.
What you suggest will have a larger differential than the current maximum between LGV limits & car limits.

Are we agreed then, more effective enforcement of the 70 limit will address your concerns most effectively.
i.e. Anyone over it gets caught & if they keep doing it they'll be off the road.


Edited by livvy

Perhaps you could lend your support to SPECS systems then.
After all they would help in promoting the safe climate that he suggests & thus aid your safety on the road.

Edited by livvy

I think people should take to driving cars that can't exceed the limit for a while, and see it from a different perspective..
(..and no, this isn't a cue for limiters to be introduced.. Livvy.. )

Nigel wrote: How many cars do you know of that can't break the limit without limiters ? Even wifeys three cylinder 1 litre suzuki can do that !

Evening Biggles..

Well, maybe they can (and I've been a passenger in one of those Swifts - and they can travel a bit) but I wouldn't want to go any faster than 80 in Kez's Vit - I tend to stick to 70 in that and let everything just pass me.

One thing that I do find helps, are those signs that light up to say you are going too fast.. It makes you take notice of your speed and alter it accordingly.

I'm not being smug either, but I can't remember the last time a sign like that lit up for me. But if my attention did stray from my speedo, I'd far rather a sign told me that I was speeding so that I could fix it there and then, as opposed to getting a NIP in the post a fortnight later. Slowing down at the time might save a life. The NIP certainly could be a fortnight too late.

However, this is all a distraction from my main point.

A detailed analysis of the risk factors in driving has been done, and a differential in speed is a huge risk factor. If everyone else is breaking the limit, then joining them is the safest thing to do.

livvy wrote: I don't think Safety is negotiable

Yet, livvy tells us that we should do the UNSAFE thing and stick to the speed limit.

I would like to ask livvy to please explain why exactly I should maintain my current driving habits when I now know that unilaterally adhering to speed limits is placing me at a substantially higher risk of dying in an RTA.

This is not an arbitrary point. My life is at stake, and a safety-advocating policewoman is telling me that I should ignore some fairly clear safety advice and stick to the law.

If I die from adhering to the law, will livvy (or the police in general) financially support my child? If my child dies from my adherence to the law, will livvy (or the police in general) be able to bring her back?


Edited by spokey

spokey wrote: I would like to ask livvy to please explain why exactly I should maintain my current driving habits when I now know that unilaterally adhering to speed limits is placing me at a substantially higher risk of dying in an RTA. This is not an arbitrary point. My life is at stake, and a safety-advocating policewoman is telling me that I should ignore some fairly clear safety advice and stick to the law.

It's not demonstrably safer.

He appears to be working from a simplistic view that you are travelling slower than the flow so it is safer for you to go with the flow. What he is not accounting for is others that don't do that. Others who's speed will now have a greater differential because of your increase to go with the faster vehicles. There is no mention of them.

LGVs have limiters, they can't increase their speed to go with the flow. If you match speed with faster vehicles you move further from their speed, increasing risk not decreasing it in relation to them. With the variations in speed of vehicles you will never be able to accurately judge the median, you will always be above or below it, so you will find it nigh on impossible to hit the optimum speed. Particularly as the gap between fastest & slowest gets greater.

As the LGVs can't up their speed & if we are trying to to get a flow where we are broadly fairly close together in terms of speed, the best model is to more rigorously enforce the 70 limit. This of course will have some variations but far more acceptable safety wise, with the speeds of fastest & slowest not too far apart & a smaller gap to the median than where we allow more freedom on the upper end.

Of course as with anything you can't force people with freedom of movement to do that (unless you put limiters in all cars) & they will make their choice to break the limit or stay within it as is suggested & enforced. Either way you make your personal choice & you live with that & any consequences it brings.


Edited by livvy