50 MPH Speed limit.

[col]

Thats exactly the point, youve hit the nail on the head. Attitudes are never going to be changed, so I believe a slower speed limit would help in minimising accidents, or at least helping to stop some happening. Id rather have a bad tempered/impatient/ignorant/crap driver doing 50 than 70.

 

[col]

so it's you.

this is why people drive in the middle lane. so they don't have to keep changing speed and weaving in and out of the inside lane which is imminently more dangerous than driving at a constant 70mph in the middle lane that is easier for other people to judge and anticipate.

well done, you.

Mmmmm yes your right, I do stick to the inside lane at that speed, its rare I need to overtake as most always go passed as if Im stood still they are going that fast. Travelling at 70 can be safe too as I sometimes do too, and I find overtaking then pulling back into the inside lane no problem at all. Who are those drivers that weave in and out changeing their speed constantly in a dangerous manner, do you know them? Where do you recomend I drive when doing 50 ish,if Im causeing so much inconvenience?

 

[col]

I think you should all read this highly relevant bit of journalism.

Just read your link, I suppose it never dawned on the motorist claiming everyone would be late for work, to just go a bit earlier
But then America has managed ok havnt they?

 

[Dan B]

have to keep changing speed and weaving in and out of the inside lane

"Now look what you've made me do!"

 

[marinyork]

Well I've just pointed you to some expert opinion, based on evidence and research, that says it will make a significant difference. So on what basis does what you "think" outweigh that?

Actually Night Train's post hits on one very important distinction that is never made clear enough in people's language. It would be perfectly possible to have roughly the same number of accidents and yet have the number of deaths averaged over thousands upon thousands of accidents and years decrease significantly. The mechanics of it is absolutely crucial as to how many people get killed. Mechanical features otherwise known as 'safety features' are important, but it comes back to momentum and energy and materials when we have accidents. The higher the speed, the higher the kinetic energy, the more fatalities we are likely to get averaged over many accidents. The research you quote merely tells us that this idea correlates very highly with reality, as we'd expect. Really people should expect this whether they've read any of it or not.

Of course due to breaking distances and various other things, reducing the speed limit may also make accidents less likely in the first place.

 

[trustysteed]

i've lost count of the amount of drivers i've seen start off in the inside lane, cut across both lanes at speeds well in excess of 70, then cutting back across two lanes to the inside lane before repeating that manoeuvre. and they tend to cut across the front of other vehicles as they return to the inside lane to 'make a point'. that's four lane changes over 70mph in about 1/4 of a mile.

i find that vastly more dangerous and annoying than someone sticking to the middle lane at 65-70mph whose constant speed and direction i can judge and anticipate.

 

[col]

i've lost count of the amount of drivers i've seen start off in the inside lane, cut across both lanes at speeds well in excess of 70, then cutting back across two lanes to the inside lane before repeating that manoeuvre. and they tend to cut across the front of other vehicles as they return to the inside lane to 'make a point'. that's four lane changes over 70mph in about 1/4 of a mile.

i find that vastly more dangerous and annoying than someone sticking to the middle lane at 65-70mph whose constant speed and direction i can judge and anticipate.

Your right, again its attitude to driving that causes the most problems, so slow them down it would be safer all round.

 

[jonesy]

Actually Night Train's post hits on one very important distinction that is never made clear enough in people's language. It would be perfectly possible to have roughly the same number of accidents and yet have the number of deaths averaged over thousands upon thousands of accidents and years decrease significantly. The mechanics of it is absolutely crucial as to how many people get killed. Mechanical features otherwise known as 'safety features' are important, but it comes back to momentum and energy and materials when we have accidents. The higher the speed, the higher the kinetic energy, the more fatalities we are likely to get averaged over many accidents. The research you quote merely tells us that this idea correlates very highly with reality, as we'd expect. Really people should expect this whether they've read any of it or not.

Of course due to breaking distances and various other things, reducing the speed limit may also make accidents less likely in the first place.

The point is that Night Train (as so many do in discussions about road safety) made a statement beginning "I think..." about the impact of changing speed limits that isn't supported by the research.

 

[col]

That wouldn't have made any difference. Seeing that it was foggy there it's likely the speed limit would have been reduced to something like 50 anyway.

The reason most crashes occur on the motorway is because most motorists drive too fast for the conditions. On a clear sunny day 70mph or even 80-90mph is safe, but in fog or heavy rain even 70mph is unsafe, but most still do it.

Any speed can be safe in a clear and dry straight road, unless the vehicle fails that is. But if the speed limit had been 50, I believe this accident and many others similar to it , would not have been as serious.
Thats why signs on motorways flash up lower speed limits in adverse weather conditions, because its safer. But most ignore these and carry on as they were, and this is what makes an accident more serious than it could have been, or even avoided all together. Speed does kill, your never going to change attitudes, so change the speed,I believe it would help.

 

[trustysteed]

if any good can possibly come out of this, it may be that many more people will now reduce their speed accordingly when conditions are bad or when prompted to do so by the motorway signs.

note the use of may....

 

[marinyork]

The point is that Night Train (as so many do in discussions about road safety) made a statement beginning "I think..." about the impact of changing speed limits that isn't supported by the research.

Mechanics is research too! It's just not disputed as much...

 

[jonesy]

Mechanics is research too! It's just not disputed as much...

Of course it is, but I wasn't objectiing to anyone's views on mechanics. It was un-evidenced commments like "I also don't think a decrease will improve driving nor accidents significantly" which I'm objecting to, as the research says it will reduced accidents, but few of the contributors to this discussion seem particulary interested in what research by experts has to say on the matter, their own experience clearly carrying far more weight.

 

[Crackle]

Of course it is, but I wasn't objectiing to anyone's views on mechanics. It was un-evidenced commments like "I also don't think a decrease will improve driving nor accidents significantly" which I'm objecting to, as the research says it will reduced accidents, but few of the contributors to this discussion seem particulary interested in what research by experts has to say on the matter, their own experience clearly carrying far more weight.

Is this not the problem your evidenced research fails to actually address. At some point, people aren't interested in how many lives a 10mph decrease will save. If increasing it means 35 more people might die (I've made the figures up but bear with me), then the percieved risk is virtually the same. And it works the other way around if you reduce it by 10mph, the percieved intrusion of rights (for want of a better phrase), rises exponentially.

At some point your research needs to point out how to change the consensus so it matters to people.

 

[Night Train]

This is why I am not arguing, just saying what I think. I have an opinion based on what I think based on the experiences I have had. I don't dispute hard proven facts but that doesn't mean I must change what I think any more then Col thinking that bringing the speed limit down to 50mph will make a lot of difference. He thinks it will, I think it won't.

If it happens then we will see whos view is closer to the actual events.

I don't mind being wrong if a simple fix causes people to stop dying on the roads I just think it will take more then a simple fix.
I don't have enough belief in society being that good, individuals yes but millions of people no. Again, that is just my opinion.

 

[Night Train]

Is this not the problem your evidenced research fails to actually address. At some point, people aren't interested in how many lives a 10mph decrease will save. If increasing it means 35 more people might die (I've made the figures up but bear with me), then the percieved risk is virtually the same. And it works the other way around if you reduce it by 10mph, the percieved intrusion of rights (for want of a better phrase), rises exponentially.

At some point your research needs to point out how to change the consensus so it matters to people.

Having a look at the document I found this.
Changing a speed limit from 70mph to 60mph results in 94 fewer lives lost.
Changing the speed limit from 70mph to 80mph results in 18 more lives lost.

I assume these figures are modeled based on some collected data. One can, therefore, look at that and suggest that the 10mph difference from 60-70 is considerably more dangerous then the one from 70-80.
One could then manipulate that to suggest that it would be better to drive between 70 and 80mph as fewer lives are lost in that range then at the 60-70mph range!
Stupid really but that is what modeling and statistcal manupulation can give you.

I will read the whole document later, when I have the ability to concentrate on screen reading, and see how another group's opinion differs from this group's opinions.