20mph Speed Limits

[dawesome]

On first point I recently saw a story which suggested that places where they were stopped from driving at a young age generally just pushed the accidents back to a later age (suggesting it came down to experience.)

Second point is absolutely wrong. You're paraphrasing a senior police official who actually said something along the lines of "I've been told that the biggest kill of". We then did research into it on another forum and showed the likelihood of this 'fact' being true to be negligible..

I'd like to see that research, the only caveat I'd be wary of is that the driver who kills the teenage girl is the boyfriend. It is certainly true to say that the single most common cause of premature death for young people is RTC fatalities- that's more than disease, cancers, and other accidents: Road traffic incidents are the single biggest killer of young people in the UK. This means, if you are aged 11-25 in the UK, you are more likely to be killed by traffic than being stabbed, neglected or contracting a life threatening disease:www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/safety/YDpolicyBrief.pdf
It's interesting that you try to mitigate the deadly effects of speeding, may I ask which forum it was?

 

[jds_1981]

I'm afraid you'll have to work a bit harder to convince me that 17 year old newly qualified drivers aren't more likely to be dangerous than newly qualified 37 year olds. It's not just driving experience, it's maturity. You say you saw a story to the contrary - it would be interesting to see.

As to your second point - I didn't realised fora did "research"! Could you share your findings.

I'm not being awkward - just interested - as I have done a google search on these questions and not found much of any use.

you'll have to wait until I get home for better responses

First one, sure I'll try & dig up the story. I've not checked the stats myself but the synopsis was as above.

second one was in the commuting part of bikeradar forum. Search function isn't coming up with anything at the moment. The policeman was Meredydd Hughes

 

[Buddfox]

Bollocks. Loads of excellent drivers (including off duty coppers) will exceed motorway speed limits but drive completely legally and safely in built up areas. You can be safe and exceed the speed limit in certain situations, but not in the sorts of situations where they will be bringing in 20 limits. It's all about common sense and not behaving like a prat.

+1

But prepared to be told to get off the road and have your licence removed by a bunch of self-righteous people on this forum...!

 

[Mad at urage]

I posted that link because someone stated that any driver who did not know the speed limit for a given section of road was undeserving of his licence. It is a stupid position to take.

Drivers should first and foremost rely on their skills of observation to judge what is a safe speed. They should not refer to the number on a stick and set their speed according to that. How many people do you know who see a NSL sign and immediately speed up? That's the dangerous behaviour here.


People seem to be assuming that I drive at warp speed everywhere I go. It's the same flawed line of thinking that some motorists take when presuming that "all cyclists ignore red lights and don't pay road tax".

Dig just a bit beneath the surface and one finds the same silly stereotypes and prejudices, no matter where one goes.

People here are taking you at your word that you daily exceed the speed limit: This is nothing to do with assuming you "drive at warp speed everywhere". You admitted an illegal activity which is correlated strongly with increased risk to others. You branded yourself.

Nice strawman. No-one has said that drivers should always drive at the speed limit, but they should always drive below it.
The speed limit is the maximum safe speed. The actual safe speed is very often lower.

I will grant that, in some limited situations, someone can exceed the speed limit without much additional risk (note any increase in speed is by definition more dangerous) but for some odd reason we have decided that we can't rely on people's judgement for that. I wonder why?

"The speed limit is the maximum safe speed" - well, it is the maximum legal speed, below which you should be safely driving might be a better way of phrasing it, but I think I'm agreeing with the sense of your post . As indicated in my reply to PoD, in the link he posted, even on a dry day the incorrectly-signed 30mph limit is not one I'd aim to be driving at! Not sure what his point actually was in posting that, because it certainly did not justify exceeding the speed limit (unless he happens to know of a 5mph limit on that stretch of road, which isn't indicated).

Now I could have posted a picture of a N.London major highway, currently undergoing repair, where there is a 40mph limit which changes to a 50mph limit, but has a single 30mph sign displayed, rather confusingly, to the left (I suspect where a slip has been removed). It's possible that the limit on the nearside lane there is actually still 30, according to the paperwork ....

Back to the difficulties of 20mph limits perhaps? Is the 20 limit on Tower Bridge still in place? That seemed to be generally observed last time I crossed.

 

[dawesome]

Come on!!! This is so obviously false! The only thing you're doing is driving at an illegal speed!

And bullying vulnerable road users, scaring old people, intimidating pedestrians, making more noise, being anti-social.

Waits for the " empty road surrounded by nothingness, boundless and bare, no pedestrians, no cyclists" anecdote.

 

[dellzeqq]

Your instructions mean nothing to me. Do you know what the speed limit is on the section of road I linked?

just do as you're told

 

[benb]

This appears to be the interpretation - but the original post made no such specifications that the said speed limit breaches occurred on roads where there would be cyclists. Granted it's probable, but as I said above, everyone seems to be assuming the speed limit breaches only occur on roads where there would also be cyclists.

Either way, it doesn't really justify calling someone "contemptible", does it?

Yeah, well I'm sick and tired of motorists excusing dangerous driving. And regular breaking of speed limits is just that, no matter what you or the parrot might say.

 

[dellzeqq]

I think you'll find that most drivers will look at the number on the stick and attempt to always drive at that speed. Anyone who doesn't is subject to road rage and being overtaken.

..which is too much to bear?

We don't rely on people's judgements in general because as a society we recognise that driving standards are inadequate. So we legislate against everyone, ignoring the fact that some motorists are generally safer than others.

those would be the ones that don't speed

 

[dellzeqq]

Come on!!! This is so obviously false! The only thing you're doing is driving at an illegal speed!

as in......faulty judgement

 

[mangaman]

you'll have to wait until I get home for better responses

First one, sure I'll try & dig up the story. I've not checked the stats myself but the synopsis was as above.

second one was in the commuting part of bikeradar forum. Search function isn't coming up with anything at the moment. The policeman was Meredydd Hughes

Thanks

 

[jds_1981]

Ah, scroll down to the greg66 post

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=16524163&highlight=#16524163

 

[dawesome]

Ah, scroll down to the greg66 post

http://www.bikeradar...light=#16524163

Which only cover the age range 15-19, and doesn't record whether the boyfriend was driving.

WHO forecast is that by 2015 the motor car will be the single most common killer of all children over the age of 5:

www.sarf.org.za/seminars-and-conferences/.../6%20Tom%20Bishop.pdf

It is slowly changing, attitudes are hardening, in time drivers who speed on public roads will be viewed with the same disgust as drink drivers, who actually kill fewer people than speeding drivers.

 

[jds_1981]

<br>Which only cover the age range 15-19, and doesn't record whether the boyfriend was driving.

<br><br>I suspect that not many 13 or 14 year old girls are being driven around by their boyfriends...<br><br>+ <br>

<br>The 66 car occupants are broken down into various types of accident, and&nbsp;&nbsp;whether the deceased was a driver, passenger or other (presumably&nbsp;&nbsp;unrecorded). In the 15-19 age group, of the 66 occupants, 24 were&nbsp;&nbsp;drivers, 25 were passengers and 17 were "other" <br> <br>Unless, therefore, virtually all of the accidents involving 15-19 year&nbsp;&nbsp;old girls were ones where their boyfriends were driving, and not (eg)&nbsp;&nbsp;their parents, siblings, friends, or taxi drivers, it looks&nbsp;&nbsp;overwhelmingly likely that more 15-19 year old girls were killed by&nbsp;&nbsp;their own driving than that of their boyfriends.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<br><br>Anyway, the original quote was very unsafe - an anecdote told to a policeman that is now widely reported as fact.<br><br>with edit: -<br><br>

<span class="postbody"><br>
Furthemore, p 250 of the pdf shows that 25 girls in this age group died
of external accidents; p 256 shows that 23 died of intentional self
harm; and p 42 shows that 48 dies of diseases of the nervous system and
52 of neoplasms (cancers).
</span>

<br><br>so if 'cancer' is a category, that would be the biggest killer.<br>

 

[mangaman]

Ah, scroll down to the greg66 post

http://www.bikeradar...light=#16524163

Interesting and I agree implies boyfriends are not the biggest cause of death in young women, so thanks.

 

[2Loose]

After reading half the thread and actually sympathising with Parrot (although haven't read the latter half, so excuse me...maybe)...I can't help thinking that some speed limits are set wrongly in some areas. But I think Parrots main point was driving within the conditions and ability. Limits can be a farce in certain areas.

No reduced limits outside local schools with a large quantity of drivers treating the 30 limit as a target, despite double parked cars and a huge number of 5-10 year olds.

A thirty limit where there are no residences or even buildings for over a mile, then switching to a 40 when the environment changes to 'built up'.

A sensible (but obviously not law abiding) driver will do 60 in the 30 limit, but only 30 in the 40 limit. In my view, that makes them more observant and thoughtful than someone that sticks to both limits, regardless of the environment.

Travelling at a ton on an empty motorway is far less dangerous than sticking to a 30 limit in a built up area at ANY time imho.

Putting 20mph limits near vulnerable areas, schools, through town center's etc. is a good idea purely because not all drivers are thoughtful. Some need the instruction because they cannot be trusted to make that judgement on their own, so ultimately is a good idea. I get the impression that Parrot and other decent drivers would be driving below the usual posted limit in these areas anyway.