I agree with 20mph at schools, well justified!
As for country roads at 50mph, madness. Whether you crash into someone at 50 or 60 its still a serious accident and regardless of the limit 50mph is still too fast / dangerous for the black spot corners.
50mph is still too fast to stop in time for a cyclist around a blind bend with a lorry / tractor or any car coming the other way. It won't stop people from loosing on tricky bends and it will just make the countryside congested.
Mind you, it might lower co2 emissions and give more opportunity to catch more motorists in the camera vans.
|
|
|
Hang about.
If speeds are reduced by one sixth, then drivers will spend more hours at the wheel and traffic jams will get longer and so on to infinity.
Which means that drivers are more likely to come into contact with, or at least cross the paths of, other drivers.
Which meaans more collisions, and more injuries and more deaths on the roads.
And ambulances will take longer to reach scenes of crashes because there will be more cars on the roads for longer periods of times, causing longer traffic jams.
Won't it??
|
You will have probably seen the news article about this. It looks to be reducing some A roads from 60 to 50 mph, and the use of 20 in some ?residential areas? & by schools.
This must be good in places, I?m sure we all know narrow bendy bits of road where the legal limit of nsl is suicidal.
I?m not so convinced of the 20 idea though. Ok by schools, but it will seem ridiculously slow on some wide straight urban roads. We will all be driving with the brakes on.
Good news for camera partnerships ? how easy it will be to ?rake it in?
Discuss
merged with another discussion on the same subject
Edited by Webmaster on 21/04/2009 at 14:33
|
|
The thought had occurred that it might be something to do with reducing emissions.
|
What a daft poorly thought out idea. Whilst I agree driving more slowly decreases fuel consumption, this suggestion has clearly been made by someone who does not drive. It should always be remembered that the torque converters in cars with conventional automatic gearboxes do not "lock up" until around 55mph. Therefore there will be a degree of slippage and hence increased fuel consumption until the road speed hits around 55.
merged with another discussion on the same subject
Edited by Webmaster on 21/04/2009 at 14:33
|
Sadly, I don't think that argument works, as the majority of autoboxes have locked up by around 45mph.
I've often found the best efficiency is around 50mph, so, as much as I am loathe to admit it - dropping the NSL to 50 would probably reduce emissions, especially in that there would be less accelerating and braking on bendier roads.
Whether it makes the smallest bit of different to global warming or not is entirely another matter...
|
Indeed, OilBurner. News today is that the sun is heading in to an unexplained cycle of inactivity similar to that which prompted the mini ice age in the 17th century.
I am looking forward to seeing Reading Ice Fair on the Thames before I kick the bucket in about 40 years.
They have absolutely no idea whatsoever what's going to happen to the climate.
|
Exactly. No matter what happens (hot or cold!) I doubt anybody will look back and go "I wish the NSL was lowered to 50mph sooner, then East Anglia wouldn't be under water", or even "I'm so glad we lowered the speed limits, it saved the Earth".
Either of those options seems incredibly unlikely!
|
|
|
|
I'm not convinced with that last statement, A... Whilst I have serious doubts that a blanket 50 speed limit would make little or any difference to global warming, as the average speeds on A or B roads are probably well below that now, it cannot be denied that the stuff coming out of our car's tailpipes, power stations and industry is not good for us... I think there's enough evidence to convince most people that the Industrial Age has changed certain aspects of the Earth's climate, sometimes for the worse (look at California for an example and I understand that there's somewhere in Greece that suffers the same way) the only thing left to prove is how good or bad it will be for us in the short term...
|
|
Whether that's true or not, if as you say the average speed is already about 50mph, then there is,in fact, no justification to lower the limit for environmental reasons...
|
|
They're just hoping that at lower speeds we might not notice the continued decline in the state of our ox-cart roads. Cheaper than spending money fixing them . . .
|
|
In which case, maybe they should start promoting the purchase of 4x4s!! ;)
|
|
|
|
How about raising limits but having a zero tolerance for breaking them.
The general public is unfortunatly rather stupid when it comes to judgement, which is why you have people tailgating, speeding past schools and showing little regard for other road users and it is a large portion of people who do this, few of them master criminals.
Only this morning I had some middle age bint in a Discovery about 5 ft from my back bumper, despite the fact I was stuck behind a lorry on a twisting country road. I wanted to shoot at her, but apparently thats a bit naughty :-)
It is also why we have speed limits.
Leaving it up to the average driver to decide how fast they should go, most will do far more than is safe, not because they should but because they can. They may well get away with it but sooner or later, their luck runs out. That is why drivers are treated like children.
Because we have a system that isnt in the least bit scary, people dont care much for speed limits, so most break them, few get caught and campaigners shut up because they see something has been done however ineffective.
Far better to make limits well thought out for each individual road BUT anything over 10% breaking of the limit, license gone and 10 years till you can have it back. If the limits are appropriate, only the bad drivers should loose out.
|
Stu, I think I agree with you on this point. Except (deep breath, as I never thought I'd say this...) I would actually be in favour of having a speed limiting device fitted and then speed limits actually being set appropriately. Perhaps the harsh penalties would then work for any cars still not equipped with limiters.
We could then see 80mph motorway limits (where sensible) without risk of raising the average to 90 as many fear!
|
|
|
How about raising limits but having a zero tolerance for breaking them.
I'd certainly argue that, for any given stretch of road, a limit set for anything other than the most open section, in the most favourable traffic, weather and hazard situations is a limit set too low. But that idea and what you suggest both miss the important point. There is so much emphasis on speed that large numbers of drivers seem to have forgotten that there is rather a lot more to safe and responsible driving than simply obeying the limit. What's needed is a shift of focus away from speed and onto much wider driving skills and standards. A zero tolerance approach even of sensible limits won't help educate the driving public that the number of miles per hour you are doing should not be your primary focus. Unfortunately, speed is undeniably an attractive metric simply because it's easier to measure than competence.
you have people tailgating speeding past schools and showing little regard for other road users
Two of those three can be carried out without breaking the speed limit. And if I reword the third to "driving inappropriately fast past schools", that can be done below the speed limit too. It is no more acceptable to do any of them below the speed limit than above.
They may well get away with it but sooner or later their luck runs out. That is why drivers are treated like children.
Interesting that you see the cause and effect that way round - cause: drivers don't respect the rules, effect: drivers get treated like children. It works just as well the other way, which is how we've ended up in this downward spiral of driving standards and responsibility.
Far better to make limits well thought out for each individual road BUT anything over 10% breaking of the limit license gone and 10 years till you can have it back. If the limits are appropriate only the bad drivers should loose out.
That would do nothing to tackle all the people who do stupid, dangerous, irresponsible and antisocial things below the speed limit. Indeed, by increasing the limit, you increase the opportunity for bad driving below the limit. I like the suggestion to buck the current stupid trend of thinking: "let's make the limit so low that it's impossible to be dangerous within the speed limit" but I don't think we stand a hope of improving the standards and sense of individual responsibility among drivers until we can start to attribute far less emphasis to numerical measures of speed.
|
|
|
|
|
it cannot be denied that the stuff coming out of our car's tailpipes power stations and industry is not good for us...
No denying that, but for me I think pollution is more a health issue which has been quite well dealt with since the middle 20th century than it will ever be a climate issue. I'm all in favour of reducing emissions for health reasons as an asthmatic myself, but air is far, far cleaner in our cities than it's ever been, even pre-industrialisation.
(look at California for an example and I understand that there's somewhere in Greece that suffers the same way)
How has California's climate changed and have there been proven causes? Not trying to provoke an argument, I'm just genuinely interested. The most serious abuses of the planet by man are routinely ignored, such as the destruction of the Aral Sea, because it isn't somewhere many people care much about.
What absolutely needs to be stopped for the well being of mankind is deforestation of the planet, this is potentially the most catastrophic thing we can do to the place. But even then, in the long run, the planet will survive and rejuvenate itself right up until the sun goes bang. Most likely for many billions of years without us cretins running around eating and burning everything. The human race is ultimately a fleeting chapter in the story of planet Earth, unless we manage to blow it to pieces with nuclear weapons. No amount of screaming about "man made climate change" is going to have the slightest impact on anything very much.
|
But unless I've missed something, the claimed justification for the measure is not climate change, interesting though these exchanges are, but safety.
We'll discover the real reason in due course, and it won't be to do with either -- or it will just get forgotten, like last week's eye-catching initiatives. Cynical? Moi?
|
|
|
Try looking up "smog" and "california" in a search, A, and I think that its well known that it wasn't nature that caused it! They've done an awful lot to reduce it, but pollution is still an issue over there.
I'd debate strongly that "pollution is more a health issue which has been quite well dealt with since the middle 20th century than it will ever be a climate issue" - its been better 'understood' both as a health issue and a climate issue in recent years but I don't think we've really 'dealt' with it very well... we're getting better, and modern cars have helped but there's still a long long way to go...
I've no doubt Earth will survive without us, but do we really want to cut short our offspring's enjoyment of it for our own selfish reasons?
Having said that I tend to feel that the motorist has done more than enough recently and its time for industry and power companies to do their bit.
|
Try looking up "smog" and "california" in a search
Sorry b308, but surely smog is a pollution and health issue, not a climate change issue? I'm not aware that smog has caused a change to climate anywhere?
I'd debate strongly that "pollution is more a health issue which has been quite well dealt with since the middle 20th century than it will ever be a climate issue" - its been better 'understood' both as a health issue and a climate issue in recent years but I don't think we've really 'dealt' with it very well...
I wasn't around in the times of the peas-soupers in London but I'm pretty certain we don't get those any more. We have achieved much, but you are right, still much to do I'm sure.
I've no doubt Earth will survive without us but do we really want to cut short our offspring's enjoyment of it for our own selfish reasons?
I doubt very much we are doing that by reducing a few speed limits by 10mph.
Having said that I tend to feel that the motorist has done more than enough recently and its time for industry and power companies to do their bit.
Hear, hear (or is it "Here, here", never quite sure).
|
>> Try looking up "smog" and "california" in a search Sorry b308 but surely smog is a pollution and health issue not a climate change issue? I'm not aware that smog has caused a change to climate anywhere?
I'd have thought thats one and the same thing, what happens on a local basis can also happen on a much wider basis if the emmissions are high enough, and thats what seems to now be starting to happen... The cause of the pea soupers was recognised at the time and something was done about it...
Now the pollution in cities, whilst not as visible as it was has become just as bad as it was in the 50s in a different form and again we need to tackle it... and as with the 50s people will not like what they have to do... on warm summer days its noticably easier to breath where I live in the country rather than the centre of Brum where I work, so I'm a believer when it comes to "local" climate change.
|
|
How has California's climate changed ..
Surely I can't be alone in believing that the original enforcement of cat-converters was in order to alleviate the famous LA smog? When it was obvious to nearly everyone that the smog was due solely to every person there travelling by car, all car makers interested in selling in California had to develop cats.
Whether you consider that has anything to do with climate may be a different matter ...
But as regards deforestation, you are absolutely right.
Edited by Andrew-T on 21/04/2009 at 15:48
|
I notice various people here seem to imagine people have to be told to drive at a speed enabling them to stay on the road: '... quite a lot of twisty narrow country roads where the NSL is much too fast... should be reduced to 50... etc. etc.'
How hopelessly naive can you get? It is transparently obvious that the majority of drivers, to be on the safe side, drive most of the time rather slowly for the conditions, and that this will apply on narrow twisty country B roads as well as motorways safe for 200mph. Those who drive much too fast for the conditions or their own or their car's ability will soon crash and be taken out of the equation.
The urban speed limit should be raised to 40mph in keeping with the brakes and tyres of modern cars. There should be no NSL at all. The driving test should be far more rigorous on the driving side. Drunk pedestrians and cyclists who cause accidents, or their heirs, should be pursued for compensation by those whose property is damaged as a result.
|
Those who drive much too fast for the conditions or theirown or their car's ability will soon crash and be taken out of the equation.
Along with those they hit.
|
|
As now, Alanovich. People determined to do stupid harm can't be stopped.
|
Oh ok, that's all right then.
Not sure I want people driving down my road, lined with parked cars on both sides, at 40mph though, when anything over 20 sets off all the alarms.
But I guess the same children who would have stepped out in front of a car doing 30 will still step out, so no harm done there then either, eh? Out of the equation, as you put it. Everyone worth tuppence will survive.
I think I'm getting the hang, here. In fact, why bother with an urban limit at all? The same retarded pedestrians will be wiped out. Us clever dickies will be all right.
|
Don't worry Alanovich, the kid that would have been hit by the car doing 30 will be fine as the 40 mph driver will already have passed by. ;-)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB9lUXMuiHg
Edited by Gordon M on 21/04/2009 at 16:43
|
Lud its not about good brakes, it is about the reaction of the driver, at 40mph this causes more of a stopping delay than the actual mechanics of the car.
I think all speed limits in the city should be 30mph apart from dual carraige ways away from the residential areas (40mph). I have mixed feelings about 20 zones because in the areas which really need them its very hard and stupid to do more than 20 anyway.
Other roads are very quiet and large they have 20mph zones just because there is a school nearby, the result is 20 seems stupidly slow and you get all the tailgators trying to get passed you. Should these roads have an electronic vairable limit? 20mph from say 7:00am till 6pm at school times and 30 the rest?
|
I can't think of a single 20mph zone that is needed. If 30mph is too fast for the conditions, you can be sure that drivers will drive more slowly by themselves.
Nearly all the 20mph zones I know are wide streets, made narrower by stupid horrible bollards, and rendered damaging to cars by stupid horrible speed bumps. They tend to consist of wide-ish residential streets in which everyone has a car anyway. 20mph zones are imposed by stupid craven local politicians in response to stupid demands from half-witted residents. They are never, ever, necessary.
If even car enthusiasts (or people interested in the automobile) are willing to give this rubbishy baby stuff the time of day, then it is time for red-blooded petrolheads to seek out more agreeable company among the rest of the criminal fraternity. Respectable people are just becoming too dull to bear.
|
That's exactly where petrol-heads are heading - the criminal fraternity. There is little point owning a powerful car like a BMW M3 unless you are willing to collect points (and then inevitably drive whilst banned, etc) these days. Madness.
Funny how acceptable behaviour (e.g. driving quickly, not whilst banned!) one day quickly becomes anti-social and irresponsible the next.
I wonder what's next for the PC brigade once drivers have been fully bled?
|
I suspect that over the next 5 years the government will make owning any car over 2 litre size very expensive and generally unacceptable to own.
(Just my own view so I am welcome to criticism)
|
I can't think of a single 20mph zone that is needed. If 30mph is too fast for the conditions you can be sure that drivers will drive more slowly by themselves.
No, I'm sorry. I can't. Most do, but I see people not acting like this far too often. In towns and on motorways.
|
Perhaps it's your own judgement that is at fault Alanovich.
Drivers who go much too fast for the conditions are a rarity in my experience. The opposite sort are wall to wall, getting in each other's way (and mine) as if there were no tomorrow.
|
Perhaps it's your own judgement that is at fault Alanovich.
Right back atcha. Although I fail to see how this is a question of judgement.
I see very few people getting in my way around town, as I don't expect to be able to drive particularly fast in a very crowded environment.
If you feel there are too many people getting in your way, I'd tend to think you're being too impatient and have unrealistically high expectations of how fast one can drive around the modern urban environment.
But we both inhabit different locations, and on the occasions I do drive in to central London, traffic can be frustrating. But in my view it's the volume which does it, not the attitudes of drivers.
|
Lud its not about good brakes it is about the reaction of the driver at 40mph this causes more of a stopping delay than the actual mechanics of the car.
What make you say that Rattle? Highway code stopping distances are a can of worms I know, but they are a usable reference and they work that thinking distance (reaction of the drivier) increases linearly with speed but braking distance (mechanics of the car) increases with the square of speed, so the mechanics of the car is more significant.
From 30 to 40mph, the stopping distance increases by 45 feet. 10 of those feet come from the reaction of the driver and 35 from the mechanics of the car.
You've have to find an awful lot of fault with the highway code system before you could overturn a factor of 3.5 in favour of the mechanics of the car being more important.
|
When was the highway code last updated in terms of stopping distances?
The mechanical stopping distance is getting shorter all the time as cars get better but on average the human factor remains the same.
|
Those who drive much too fast for the conditions or their >> own or their car's ability will soon crash and be taken out of the equation. Along with those they hit.
Careful you don't mix up two completely different groups of people.
There are people who take their cars out onto the open road for a bit of fun and who, by pushing either their own or their car's ability might risk their own safety but not anyone else's. And there are people who do the same thing without a care for those around them and risk other people's safety.
The second group should be the focus of road traffic law enforcement. The first group should be regarded in the same way as people who do other potentially hazardous activities for fun like climbing mountains or playing rugby.
|
There are people who take their cars out onto the open road for a bit of fun and who by pushing either their own or their car's ability might risk their own safety but not anyone else's.
I tend to agree, but one can never say that you are never endagering the safety of others around you, unless you have some kind of radar system hardwired to your brain, or some kind of telepathy telling you there's no-one else around. Stack your car through a fence, and how do you know there's no one sitting on the other side?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
