50 MPH Speed limit.

[jonesy]

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.

Stupid certainly, but it tells us nothing about modelling, merely how easy it is to misrepresent numbers if you haven't bothered to find out what they mean....

And this report isn't the opinion of another 'group', it is the informed opinion of people who are experts in road traffic accidents and who have actually looked at the data, instead of just relying on "I think".

 

[Night Train]

This report has been prepared for the Department for Transport.
The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Department for Transport.

A group of authors (two), who are educated and learned and are using several pages of references. However, it is still their views and opinions and interpretation of the referenced material. (I learnt that that is all it is when I was studying for my MSc.)
I am sure that in modeling estimated road deaths no one was actually killed in the process and it is just a model based on statistcal data.

Seriously though, I will read the document as there will be a lot of useful information in it but my personal thoughts about my actual experiences of driver behaviour are just as valid to my input in this discussion as anyone elses.

At least I admit that these are just my considered thoughts and opinions and not based on anything or anyone elses.

 

[Dan B]

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!

If one were innumerate and utterly incapable of logical argument, perhaps one could. Otherwise, not so much

 

[Archie_tect]

Stupid certainly, but it tells us nothing about modelling, merely how easy it is to misrepresent numbers if you haven't bothered to find out what they mean....

And this report isn't the opinion of another 'group', it is the informed opinion of people who are experts in road traffic accidents and who have actually looked at the data, instead of just relying on "I think".

I think you've made that point J.

 

[Brains]

I'm with night train - post #42 on this one.

Speed suitable for the conditions is not the issue.

Driver training needs to be regularily updated, at least once every 5 years, for everyone.

As I have stated in the past I would like to see training be progressive, so your pass your cycle test at say 11, which then permits you to pass your moped test at 15, your motobike test at 17 and your car test at 19, HGV at 21, PSV at 23 and so on.

So before you get behind the wheel of a car you will already have held, for a least a year & several thousand miles in each case, a cycle licence, a moped licence, a motorbike licence etc.

If you can't ride a motorbike, then you should not be permitted to drive a car.

 

[Archie_tect]

If the speed limit was 0, no-one would be killed in RTAs.... any other speed is a matter of risk versus necessity.

 

[Night Train]

I've read that document.

Well, I read the first 40 pages in detail and then scanned the rest as there was very little in direct relation to the thread topic.
Much of it is estimated, assumptions, and models based on estimates and assumptions though some were repeatledly adjusted to real data. From the assumptions and estimates in the referenced papers more assumptions and estimates were made. Some of which were substanciated and some not.

I would summerise that from what I read in detail there is a greater estimated benefit from urban speed reductions to 20mph, average speed cameras enforcing 70mph and reducing single cariageway speed to 50mph. People 'felt' safer walking in a 20mph zone and changes of 2.4mph in speed had negligable effects on cost which was interesting as it also estimated that with a 10mph change in maximum speed the real road speed would only change by 2.4mph. Illegal benefits from speeding was ignored.

However, that is very woolly as I hadn't got around to reading the appendices and checking the references and my summary will likely change with further reading.

 

[Peteaud]

Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, 14% of people know that.

Speed limits, whilst having an influence, cannot stop the tailgaters.

Anyone caught tailgating should be banned for a month end of.

50mph on a foggy, wet road is far more dangerous than 80mph on a clear day and dry road.

I would leave the 70 limit and clamp down on the tailgaters, bad drivers etc.

 

[I_S]

There are two hills near where I live on which it's easy to cycle at over 40m.p.h., I've done so many times according to G.P.S..

Given the stopping distance on a bicycle is much greater than a car, should we limit bicycles to 15m.p.h. for safety?

 

[I_S]

[QUOTE 1604716"]
Why would we do that?
[/quote]




The original proposal is to set a maximum speed for motor vehicles of 50m.ph., for safety reasons, there's no need to travel faster apparently as you just set off earlier.




Given a car can stop in the fraction of the distance of a bicycle, then shouldn't bicycles have an upper speed limit too thus improving safety for all?




The 50m.ph. idea is flawed because 40mph would yield more reductions is accidents, as would all other speeds down to 0mph. Bad driving is the enemy not speed.

 

[on the road]

These 50mph speed limit proposals seem to be by people who have never driven a car before, let alone on a motorway. When you have driven a car for a number of years then you will come to realise that a 50mph speed limit on a motorway in normal conditions is silly, have a 50mph speed limit in fog or heavy rain or when there's roadworks (which is often what they have in such conditions) but on a clear dry day there's no need for a reduced speed limit.

 

[I_S]

[QUOTE 1604718"]
You'll know that speed is a significant factor in increasing risk. Road safety is about acceptable risk.

What are your sources which would show that limiting the speed of cycles will reduce the risk to cyclists on the road?
[/quote]

Source - Physics - kinetic energy of an object is directly proportional to the square of its speed.

Hit a solid object (parked car, lamp post, wall etc.) at 20mph not good - at 40mph the energy has squared -much much worse - head injury could prove fatal.

 

[XmisterIS]

Personally, I think you're in more danger of being royally fubarred if you come off your bike at 30mph than you do if you crash your modern car, with all its airbags and crumple zones, at 70mph.

 

[CopperCyclist]

Speed is a factor in accidents, but to blame speed on its own and decrease the motorway speed limit would be a mistake.

I'd prefer to concentrate on driver training, and I'd put my vote in for regular retests, and potentially even a higher level test to be able to use a motorway at all. Problem is the policy would be so disliked, and so seen as a stealth tax that a government would need balls of steel to implement it.

 

[subaqua]

I'd say it is. A properly trained driver would understand the risk and not do it and so not be reckless.
I have sat with a number of tailgating drivers who, when challenged, state that they are great drivers and are more then able to stop in the two car lengths at 80mph! Proper training would show them that they are wrong.


Maybe an an aptitude test of some sort would be a good addition to the driving test.



It always bugs me that if a person has a skill that they use for work then they are more then willing and accepting of retraining and keeping up to date and maybe even bragging about how up to date their knowledge and experience is. But it doesn't apply to driving.

You wouldn't get an IT person claiming to be an IT expert because they did a BBC basic course at school and nothing more since.

this is a brilliant response.