The easy answer to this one is raise the speed limits...

Now I am not talking across the the full road network but motorways for example should have the speed limit increased. Modern cars are more than capable of travelling safely at speed greater than 70mph. A 90mph limit on the motorway would be much more acceptable in this day and age.

On the flip side im all for the reduction of speed limits in areas such as built up housing estates, school areas, towns etc.!

As a final safety note, driving tests should be made harder/stricter with more emphasis on road safety, driving conditions and vehicle control.

P.S. Elderly people, 60+ should be required to re take a driving test and repeat every 3-5 following years! (ready for the flaming )

spokey wrote: livvy wrote: spokey wrote: livvy wrote: Everybody should be driving at a similar speed yes. But not more than the speed limit. But that directly contradicts what he's saying: he's saying if everyone else is speeding, then it's safer for you to travel at the same speed as everyone else. You can get everyone travelling at the same speed by increasing the slower drivers to the speed of the faster (which may be beyond their capabilities) OR reducing the speed of the faster drivers to that which everyone is capable of travelling at safely. It's the same result & I prefer the second because everyone is driving within their capabilities that we have all been tested to. Livvy, is this all about safety or not? If it's about safety, then his numbers quite clearly show that even if you are breaking the speed limit, you are driving more safely if you go with the flow. So, is this about safety or not?

No of course it isn't. It 's about having power over someone and exercising that power.

Hard call spokey, and only one you can make, if it makes you feel any better, I will tend to drive with the flow....but I'm still breaking the law.

Now, how about if we get everyone trained, then we may be able to increase the limits ?

Livvy often bashes me with the point, that in my quest for higher limits I am increasing the differential between different groups of road users, and thus increasing danger.

Its all a balancing act !

livvy wrote:  Variable limits are a measure to try & do that as well (everyone travelling together at a speed so you don't keep getting the stop & start, high speed then low speed. Instead it's one moderated constant flow.)

Cobblers!

Went to the NEC last Friday - on the M42 at 08:30, variable speed limit in use, 60...50...40...40...40... and I was almost stationary by then, doing 10-20mph, looking at the signs says "Wish I could do 40!"

Came back in the afternoon (3pm ish) and now my way home was showing 60...50... with an almost empty road!

So with the few of us on the road at that time all bunched up together, annoyed, as we can't ignore the limit as 90% of the signs have camera's on them!

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’m all for variable speed limits but think, as others have said before, there are times when the limit should be above 70. 

Two clear examples spring to mind are road works where people are risking AND losing their lives.  Have the speed limit ‘dead’ slow during the time they are working but higher when they are not.  OK maybe not higher than 70 but  I find nothing more irritating than going through road works at 30/40 when there’s no-one there. 

And the other is on the motorways/dual carriageways at night when there’s nothing for miles and I’m pottering down the road at 70.

But I agree with 20 mph zones round places where kids are about.

And ….. wouldn’t it be safer if lane changing was not allowed say 200 metres before and after motorway junctions and in crawling motorway traffic?

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 !

Rhys wrote: 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.

You will be amazed ( and I don't say this smugly), as to how that doesn't happen once you've passed your advanced test and practised it a little.

spokey wrote: livvy wrote: Keep to the limit, Even though it's demonstrably more dangerous? So it's not about saving lives then? It's more about adherence to the law?

Exactly.

livvy wrote: dutch wrote: are you advocating the use of speed limiters on all vehicles would bring down the rta stats? I'd rather we didn't have to go down that route. Perosnally I'd rather people observe the limits themselves. It is something the government are seriously looking at though & testing has already taken place in this country (& other countries in Europe). With some devices tested they sound a warning in the car & record your transgression, other devices physically stop you going over the limit.

If they are introduced they'll last until they are the cause of a death on the road. However they aren't likely to be introduced since Labour aren't lilkely to win the next election.

Stopping speeders isn't about road safety. I don't care what any load of governement statsitics tells us. It is about having a law and enforcing it. There is anoyance at people breaking a law so it is being enforced more vigorousley, it's as simple as that. It is about control. The more ways the state controls us the more likley we are to be compliant with other issues. The more laws we feel we can get away with breaking, the more likley we are to flaut other rules/regulations. It's similar to how you deal with a child. If you set a rule and the child breaks that then you need to punish the child otherwise it will think it can get away with breaking other rules. What the actual rule is is irrelevant. Simple psycology.

[QUOTE=livvy]

I'd rather we didn't have to go down that route. Perosnally I'd rather people observe the limits themselves. It is something the government are seriously looking at though & testing has already taken place in this country (& other countries in Europe). With some devices tested they sound a warning in the car & record your transgression, other devices physically stop you going over the limit.

At first your comments were of some interest-----NOW!!! they sound like a brainwashed Dalek.Where will all the transgressors go for their Electric shock treatment Or will we have built in equipment to punish us as we drive with suitable voice advice.

Peter Fenwick wrote: If they are introduced they'll last until they are the cause of a death on the road. However they aren't likely to be introduced since Labour aren't lilkely to win the next election.

Stopping speeders isn't about road safety. I don't care what any load of governement statsitics tells us. It is about having a law and enforcing it. There is anoyance at people breaking a law so it is being enforced more vigorousley, it's as simple as that. It is about control. The more ways the state controls us the more likley we are to be compliant with other issues. The more laws we feel we can get away with breaking, the more likley we are to flaut other rules/regulations. It's similar to how you deal with a child. If you set a rule and the child breaks that then you need to punish the child otherwise it will think it can get away with breaking other rules. What the actual rule is is irrelevant. Simple psycology.

Forget about the enforcement for a minute..... why do we have speed limits then ?

livvy wrote: Peter Fenwick wrote: If they are introduced they'll last until they are the cause of a death on the road. However they aren't likely to be introduced since Labour aren't lilkely to win the next election. Do you really think there is going to be a massive change in road policy & speed enforcement by any other party that get in ?

No, I don't think any party entering power will actually remove any of the measures put in place by the previous government. However I don't think they would introduce limiters themselves. I am talking about the conservative party. Like them or not, they have a less controlling attitiude to the genral public that the current labout party do.

livvy wrote: Forget about the enforcement for a minute..... why do we have speed limits then ?

I don't know. Because people were scared of cars in the early days. They did used to make them drive around with a man in front waving a red flag. Hardley a rational response to the motor car. However it is irrelevant now why we have them. The fact of the matter is it has become more about enforcement than safety.

b) It is impressed upon drivers that the limit is not indicative that it is safe to travel at that speed. It is a maximum if the circumstances are safe.

why is 70 safer than 80 the car has evolved roads are better the limit is outdated set in 1967!

Spokey

How about, scameras have absolutely nothing to do with road safety.

They are there to enforce the law...period.

Now what arguement do you have ?

Livvy, the only thing I can dissagree with you on is scameras.

They just don't measure innapropriate speed, if we talk about accidents that occur above the posted limit, all 7% of them, that makes more sense.

The introduction of scameras was handled very badly, and trying to justify them with figures for safety doesn't work, as 93% of accidents happen below the threshold that they measure.

You can't be absolutely correct spokey, but the figures I've seen range from 3 - 7% for accidents "above" the posted limit.

You can't rely on this data too much, without black boxes being fitted to cars

This thread has been going on for some time now and perhaps its time for a time out!!!

You may want to consider this in the discussion;

The law is there as guidance and within it there are tolerances; and tolerances elsewhere.

There is a tolerance within the speedometer in the car - when it says 40 mph you are probably doing no more than 37 mph.

There is a tolerance within the speed camera; when the limit is 40 mph you wont normally get your picture taken unless you're over 46 mph (I think, that needs checked out and may be different in different areas).

Combine these 2 and it could well be that although your speedometer says 80 (ish) your probably only doing 75 (ish) and the camera wont get you unless your actual speed is over 77 (ish).

Not all cameras have film in them, another tolerance.

Guidance to warn you where the speed cameras are, or may be, is available through GPS systems, and even included in some road maps,

Guidance in local newspapers and on local radio saying where the mobile speed cameras are, or may be, is available on the web.

If you get caught, your caught fair* and square. 

‘Ah but Officer its just wan wee murder’ said Billy Connelly in his younger days …..  You’ve got to draw a line somewhere and as written above drivers have a pretty wide fuzzy one before they race over it!

*I don’t think its fair for the Police to run around in unmarked high performance cars.  Have them by all means but be open and honest about it.  That was the open and honest approach ‘welcomed’ by drivers when speed cameras came out from behind the road signs!

* Hand held speed cameras are unfair.

After 40 years I think limits, particularly on motorways, should be increased to take into account the substantial improvements in car and road safety. 

PS If you do 80 mph over 100 miles (1 hour 15 minutes) you’ll only be 10 minutes ahead of the guy doing 70 (1 hour 25 minutes).  Given that you're unlikely to get 100 miles of unhindered driving in the UK you probably wouldn’t have time to get out and lock your door before the 70 mph man came up the road behind you!

spokey wrote: Nigel wrote: How about, scameras have absolutely nothing to do with road safety. They are there to enforce the law...period. Now what arguement do you have ? That would be a lovely statement of the truth. Apart from the bit it's missing: "And collect more revenue from motorists." The arbitrary nature of the law leaves me with little doubt that it is unfair and unjust. It is very easy for your speed to vary by a couple of MPH. You might get a cramp, or sneeze, or whatever, and in that second, you could get snapped. What do you say when a road has had NO accidents on it, but because of activism, the speed limit gets dropped by 10 MPH? Yesterday, I was doing 60 safely and responsibly on this road, today, on the same stretch of road in the same conditions, I'm a crazy law-breaker, exceeding the speed limit by 20%!! The whole problem for me is that speeding is criminalised because the government is unwilling to expend a bit of effort and make us all better, safer, smoother drivers; and keep us like that. The philosophy is NOT "let's make better drivers", it's "we can't be @rsed to do anything about making it better, so let's just make it slower." The problem with this approach is that it further defers the issue and makes an actual correction even less likely. I really would not be surprised within my lifetime to find a ridiculous blanket speed limit, like 40MPH and there will STILL be idiots killing themselves because they still can't drive and there will still be pious, sanctimonious morons like Transport 2000 advocating even slower limits. So, starting from the perspective that the philosophy is wrong, the law that "defends" the philosophy is also wrong, then the enforcement of that law is ALSO wrong. Cameras enforce the law, I can't argue with that. I can argue with the value of the law, though. I can argue with the arbitrary nature of the law, as well. I can definitely argue with the reasoning behind the law as well.

Spot on Spokey

scarface wrote: Unfortuantely we've got used to being able to drive being a god given right.  Some people maybe aren't up to it.

Exactly the point I've been making in another thread.

All that is happening is we are dumbing down driving to the lowest common denomentator i.e people who probably shouldn't really be on the roads.

Rhys "You may not get 100 miles of unhindered driving in the south, further north - especially in Scotland you can go for a lot more."

A rather romantic vision of what's up here  .  The faster roads are as clogged as many other parts of the country (M8, 9, 90, 74) and the quiet ones you wouldn't dare do 80 because they're too wee!  (B236521!?!) There are nice roads (eg A9) but more often than not you can't get past the fish and supermarket lorries!  The Scottish contingent are going for a tour up the very, very North West of Scotland in June.  Great roads, great fun.

spokey  "I don't mind if they're on the road, but why are they always parked in the middle lane?"

James Bonds Aston Martin (DB5) great idea, cannons in the indicators!

another roundabout thread I see.

Just so it doesn't get left out, every single camera system, and everything that doesn't involve an immediate stop, only ever hits the majority of (generally) law-abiding citizens.

Those who are: insured, correctly registered, etc.

As per ususal, Johnny chav -who picked up a dog for a 'couple of ton' and can't even write his own name, let alone fill in a V5 - gets off scot-free.

Fantastic system you advocate!   

this is the problem these people are not shown the rules of the motorway how to drive what the signs are what to do if you break down, but because they demonstrated they can drive carefully at 28mph around town,we let them on the motorways because they have every right to be there.

then when theres and rta we can all say its speed its careless but what it is is negligence on behalf of the powers to be allowing this in the first place

Its a basic test.

Like everything else, it needs practise.

Lots & lots of very good training out there for peanuts.

How about ( this is never going to happen, but here goes), any current licenced drivers will have their entitlement to drive removed on 31/12/06, unless they can produce a recognised advanced driving certificate.

That tough enough for you ?

Its never going to happen though spokey, so its just on with the push to get people to do it volunterily.

May I organise you an assessment drive ?