Re: Victory for green lanes

The message <68id6pF2t8lt1U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
from Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@xxxxxxxxxxxx> contains these words:

I see you conveniently swept aside my comment above "speed limits
introduced as fuel saving measures". Incidentally the national speed
limit on single carriageway roads is a remnant of the fuel crisis
limits.

Because the fuel saving measures are long in the past and there's been a
great deal of worldwide opportunity to revise them, as has been done in
many places (obviously the US 55 limit). Yet it is still the case that
speed limits don't change typically /that/ much as you cross borders,
not even borders where Ms. castle had any hand in the limits.

The fuel saving measures are still with us (viz the 60 national limit)
and have influenced and still influence speed limits around the globe.

No I just blame her for the imposition of the 70 limit and the spin
needed to justify it.

If she hadn't done it it's very likely someone else would have.
Germany's unrestricted autobahns are an exception, not a rule (and not
even a universal exception within Germany).

Maybe, maybe not, but with someone in charge who could drive we might
have ending up with a system in which motorists were allowed to prove
they could drive responsibly if given the chance. As it is we have a
system that positively encourages drivers to concentrate on anything but
their driving with lack of attention heading the list of contributory
factors in RTAs.

Eh? I was saying that more cars make people more aware of cars and less
likely to have accidents with them.

No you were saying that there were so few cars around that unfamiliarity
with cars was the reason why accident rates rose year on year as traffic
increased.

If I have lower numbers than the critical mass needed for people to be
generally aware then I won't have a safety in numbers effect. But if I
have more than none then more accidents will happen in that non-critical
mass population.

You are taking a theory that may have some relevance to cyclists who
tend to be on the receiving end of
a RTA even when they are not to blame but arguing that car drivers are
in the same situation is nonsensical even if you ignore the vast
improvements in vehicle safety and road engineering. I learnt to drive
before the casualty rate peaked and I just don't recognise this strange
world you have invented where cars are so rare that even experienced
drivers don't see one from one day to the next.

And back to the wiki, "Traffic
engineers observe that the majority of drivers drive in a safe and
reasonable manner, as demonstrated by consistently favorable driving
records.

Now who was it who said?:

"But as the record shows, you won't get them them acting responsibly by
assuming they'll sensibly limit themselves."

Deary me Roger, I freely admitted that /by and large/ motorists don't
have many accidents considering their numbers today. But that still
leaves room for 3000+ deaths on the UK's roads every year. That may be
a small number for several million motorists, but it's still quite a lot
of people dying.

Accidents are an unfortunate fact of life but not allowing drivers to
exercise responsibility is not the way to minimise the numbers.

Which is why the 85 percentile limit makes some sort of sense and why a
good many countries have minimum limits as well as maximum limits. Here
in the UK the notion that a slow driver is a safe driver is king and
although there is legislation on the books for minimum limits I don't
think there are any. I certainly have never seen a minimum limit.

So the recent case of the woman punished for very low speeds on a
motorway, which made the national press but which didn't attract any
obvious criticism of the punishers as opposed to the punished, passed
you by?

On swallow does not make a summer. The roads are littered with old
fogies who should have given up driving years ago. There was an item on
t'telly only this morning about a voluntary scheme for elderly drivers
in Felixstowe of all places. It seemed quite thorough with eyesight
tests and even cognitive (if I recall the terminology correctly) tests
which did more than just test reaction times. Unfortunately there were 2
things wrong with the scheme. Firstly a driver could be told they
weren't safe to continue to drive and just ignore the advice and
secondly the scheme only applied to the elderly. There are more than a
few youngsters out there who would fail such a test.

You seem to have assumed that because overtly fast drivers are
criticised then overtly slow ones must be praised, but IME that is not
the case. When learning to drive I was certainly instructed it was my
duty not to hold up traffic unnecessarily, which doesn't fit with your
thesis.

There may be a gulf between theory and practice. It is my experience
driving on single carriageways in England and Wales that the average
driver is more concerned with preventing anyone overtaking than they are
about expediting their own progress.

The wiki also makes the point that drivers tend to ignore inappropriate
limits. The motorway limit may be below the 50 percentile mark
regardless of the limit and certainly would be if there was a way of
demonstrating what speeds drivers would drive at if not limited by law
to 70.

With the clear example being the 55 limit in the US, brought in to save
fuel. 70 is significantly greater, and driving along speed-cameraless
sections of 70 limit around here at about 70 I overtake a few and am
overtaken by a few, but most people trundle along at around the limit
plus or minus a bit, suggesting they're actually okay with it.
70 mph isn't really slow, it's not out of line with what you see in
other, not entirely dissimilar countries.

I think you are growing old before your time Pete. 70 in a modern car is
slow as several Chief Constables have demonstrated over the years. I
intend to give up driving when I find 70 too fast for comfort under any
circumstances.

I didn't say "accidents", I said "casualties". Not nearly so many
casualties at lower speeds.

Less severe injuries but even lower speed crashes (IIRC 95% at 45 mph or
below) result in casualties. And in any event dv/dt is the significant
factor, not v per se.

Oh, that's all right then. I guess large trees are really good at
stringing out deceleration...

Road engineering can reduce the instances of trees jumping out in front
of drivers. :-)

IIRC modern road design eschews dead straight roads as they do not
provide enough stimulus even for the wide awake driver at legal speeds.

You are apparently assuming that any road which isn't particularly
twisty must be "dead straight". There are very few "dead straight"
roads around here.

Would that be why every one has a bunch of flowers commemorating the
demise of some unfortunate road user who was so surprised at finding one
that they could hold a straight course?

Have I said that all speed limits need to be lower? Have I said none
should ever be raised?

You have been extolling the virtues of driving below limits and implying
that those who drive faster are irresponsible idiots. Even just above
you are maintaining that slower is safer.

If you are in a crash with a roadside object then that /is/ the case.
What I said concerning driving over the limits in this thread is that
you'll be liable for a speeding fine, and if you don't want one of those
then don't drive over the limits, and that it's actually not that hard
to do that.

If you are driving with due care and attention you shouldn't hit a
roadside object. Concentrating on keeping your speed down to an
unrealistic limit is the more dangerous option.

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Drink-driver has car confiscated
    ... This would certainly make the roads more dangerous. ... So you believe driving within the legal speed limits is dangerous? ... still be safe at significantly higher speeds. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: ABD / Francis / Right To Silence / Cameras / Has anyone had case postponed?
    ... > || Drivers are driving at safe speeds because on the whole they stick ... Without those speed limits ... > drivers is very disappointing. ... > your assertion that drivers only drive safely *because* of the limits. ...
    (uk.rec.driving)
  • Re: MLOC with style
    ... > road to apply to all cars and drivers. ... > said for setting absolute maximum speed limits. ... ....so much like the current situation for closing speeds. ... supposing all parking restrictions - single and double ...
    (uk.rec.driving)
  • Re: ABD / Francis / Right To Silence / Cameras / Has anyone had case postponed?
    ... >> || Drivers are driving at safe speeds because on the whole they stick ... Without those speed limits ... >> majority of drivers is very disappointing. ... > I do not make that assertion - I assert that if speed limits were ...
    (uk.rec.driving)
  • Re: The Speed Trap - BBC1 Scotland
    ... We still have accidents. ... >>> but would require speed limits being set at strage values very ... > Which is somehow not as good as motorists driving as fast as they think ... What "faster speeds"? ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)