You say that slowing people down will cut emissions, but is this actually true?
IE: Is there proof that running a car at 3000rpm for 3 hours (at 70mph = 210 miles) as opposed to 2000rpm (about 47mph at this gearing) for 4 hours 25 minutes (roughy the journey times) is worse the for environment?
So where do you draw the line? We could ban cars altogether and save 3,000 people but for what? We could save thousands of these deaths by banning cycling. Great. What a wonderful life we'll all have.
Statistics are this Governments favourite tool but these are misleading. How many of these accidents happened above the speed limit? Well, the Government's own statistics put this figure at less than 5%. Why aren't they doing something about the 95%?
250 has simply been stated because it's impossible to prove or disprove either way. The statistics will change by that much year on year.
"The speed limit" is given dangerously high relevance in road safety. People in Australia drive slower and yet more people die there. People in Germany drive faster and it's about the same. A 60mph speed limit does not stop somebody driving at 50mph into a 30mph corner.
Handing responsibility of road safety over to cameras is not the answer. Filling our cities with cameras has not stopped crime. Covering our roads with them will not stop bad driving. Can a camera stop somebody doing 50mph in thick fog, on icy roads? Will it stop somebody turning right carelessly (by far a bigger cause of accidents)? Will it stop drink and drug drivers? Will it stop tailgating?
How many man hours will be lost? All non-motorway journeys could be lengthened by at least 15%. What will this cost us in terms of productivity?
They've already started introducing it around the country and it makes driving incredibly frustrating already, let alone if they enforce it with more bloody cameras. Stuck behind a lorry doing 40mph but being unable to overtake as quickly as possible in case you push your average above 50mph? How is that safe?
Most importantly, the Government has no justification for forcing this upon us. Britain does not, and has not had a major problem with road safety. Millions of cars covering millions of miles every year and only 3,000 deaths? That's an amazing record compared with the rest of the world. Of course it would be great to get it down but it's not a major issue in this country. It's not for the Government to inconvenience 27 million motorists to possibly save a handful of people.
This is nothing to do with road safety. It's to do with getting a network of cameras on the roads that could conveniently be adjusted to introduce pay per mile driving. Another scheme so idiotic that only the Labour government could have given credit to.
As an alternative suggestion, why not put cameras in our cars that just record your last minute. If you have an accident, there's clear evidence whether you were or weren't driving dangerously. I'd rather have that. At least I can continue enjoying driving and the Government could stay out of my life.
I believe that average speed cameras are an infringement on the free right we have. We pass a test to drive on her majesty's highways, we should be allowed to do so without supervision.
If you introduce a black-box style last 60 second thing, then what's to stop this going on to a full time speed restriction, as was discussed a few years ago. It used satellites and the ECU to physically limit your car to the speed of whatever limit you're in. You can go from, say, 0-30 in a 30mph completely in control, however you are powerless to go above it...
Just, frankly, leave things as they are - Improve driver training and observational skills and it'll knock 25% the accident rate.. even so, considering there are 60million+ people in this country, and however many million cars, it's only inevitable that sometimes car may hit person, or person driving car may hit tree..
Although I don't think it's the fault of most car drivers..
Yesterday, my Dad was driving me back from his house.. it was dark, around 7.30pm. All of a sudden, some kid on a push-bike came belting out of a side road onto a 40mph limit road, which is often used by HGV's and stuff.
I kid you not, this kid didn't have any reflective clothing on, he had no reflectors on his bike, no helmet, nothing. If my Dad (big up motorcyclist's awareness) hadn't of seen this kid, and applied evasive maneuvours, I'm pretty sure this kid would have just been another one of these statistics.
And you know what... I wish we had of ran him over. The little shit didn't apologise as my Dad said "that was a bit stupid", he just gave a sheepish look and carried on peddling.
Which brings me onto cyclists in general. Do they have to pay road tax? Do their vehicles have to pass strictly enforced road-worthiness tests? Do you have to have a licence? Do you need any sort of protective gear? They wobble about like ducks on an ice lake and yet us drivers seem to cop all the blame should we hit one off because the **** swerved out onto the road behind a parked car without looking.
I kid you not, if I was the minister for road safety, in a year I would have cut accidents by 50%. Frankly, anyone on this forum with half a brain could, it's not rocket science.
You need two things - Support of the motorist and common sense. Often these both go hand in hand, yet no government seems to get it right.. stupidity.. Government style.
This reduction is just a publicity stunt, or worse, a way of making more money. The 60mph speed limit was fine, the problem was people going too fast for the conditions and roads. If they invested money in improving the driving test and educating more drivers then road deaths would drop. It wouldn't surpise me if they were to claim this would reduce the threat of terrorism, because police will be stopping more motorists for speeding, and they might just find a suicide bomber on his way to work.
EDIT: Or just ban Rovers, they cause most of the accidents with their crappy driving.
In theory, speed limits only work because we let them. If everyone drove at 70mph down all these 50mphs zones, the whole thing would have to fall apart, as we would have a) shown we are refusing to accept it and b) the administrative load to fine every single motorist, every time they went on such a road, would cripple the system in days.
But on a serious note, in one way or another I agree with the majority of the posts in this thread. I wonder what impact it'll really have on the country.
Increasing the speed limit to 80mph might reduce the number of road deaths on A roads, since it is a fact that a large number of accidents are head-on collisions as a result of poor/inappropriate overtaking, due to frustration.
Might. Who knows? Perhaps an all-out ban on caravans would have the same effect. One thing is for sure, stating that a 50mph limit would result in a 250/year reduction in road deaths is a work of pure fiction. There are lies, there are DAMN lies, and then there are statistics.
They won't go so far as to actually ban it. They will just make it so expensive to own and drive a car that the middle class people won't be able to afford it any longer. Cars will become a luxury that is reserved only for the rich.
Speed kills, but speed alone does not kill. As stated it need to be an accident, but when the accident itself has happend the speed is everything. Theres been a lot of research on this, and it claims that the live/death border in a collision is 70km/h + - . That is counted if the car goes in 70 km/h and then hit something solid and stops right away. It's also counted with seatbelt.
We can argue back and forth all we want, there will be good reasons for both raising and lowering the speed limits, but I think the best solution would be to have separate speed limits, not generally. Speed limits should not be set to a certain limit just because the road is of type "A or B" standard.
A fine double laned motorway, sure, put speedlimit to 100-110 km/h there, should be safe enough, but I have no problem justify speed limits on 60-80km/h on single laned (standard road) roads, but there again the speed limits would be invidually set after the road's standard.
Edit :
Well damn good said, should be a golden rule for all the idiots out there that thinks they can drive the speed limits nregardless of weather, other cars on road and other factors.
As my old instructor used to say, "It's a limit, not a target" Just because you can do 60 on a road, doesn't mean you have to. You drive to the conditions.
However if the road is suitable for 60mph, that speed, or around there, should be reached in order to not hold up other traffic - which is what Sunday drivers fail to do.
There are idiots of sunday drivers aswell, but most, here in Norway at least are pretty nice and pull over if they notice they make a scene behind them. Usually they pull over at the first buss stop or rest place to let the traffic go. But I agree that the ones not doing this, and driving far below the limits on very good roads - are asshats, and creates dangerous situations that leads into accidents.
If there is a problem that accidents happen because some people are so frustrated by slower drivers that they overtake in a dangerous manner, then raising the speed limit wont help those people not act like an idiot. It will megrely meen more people crash because
1) Higher speed differential between vehicles using the road
2) More accidents from loss of control by not slowing up enough "because the road is 80mph" (some people really cannot think).
Now as a cyclist i'm all for a lower speed limit, some cars "slow up" by shaving 5mph off, and with a blind bend approaching are quite happy to pull out and pass - or pass by very tightly indeed - and think they did nothing wrong because they slowed up.
Most drivers need to have a rethink about speed, and about what roads are... Not every vehicle on the roads is capable of doing the limit. There is no God given right to drive like a lunatic, God doesnt exist, and neither will he save me when a car driver decides not to pull over to pass me on my bike because an oncoming car just came around the blind bend ahead and they're still doing 65 mp/h and cant slow up.
The argument that going slower will result in more people getting rear ended is incorrect. Any driver who rear ends another driver is almost always in the wrong (unless some very weird and rare situation occurs), if they are incapable of driving an appropriate speed it's not the fault of the speed limit that caused an accident - it's the fault of their stupidity.
Now lowering the speed limit might sound reasonable or it might sound like an oppression of your God given right to kill other people via stupidity. Whichever it is i'm not sure because I cannot be bothered to do the research to find out for myself, so instead i'll use the published statistics. Any argument to the contrary without recognition of the statistics or that simply dismisses them as inconclusive without doing any research to back it up is simply a cantankerous view point of somebody who believe they are being told they are doing something wrong.
That's not the case, you are not doing 'something wrong' by driving at 60/70mph where the limit is now, speeding is not a criminal offence it is a civil one.
We all need to take a little more time ocassionally, seeing as some of you can't do this for yourselves, maybe a civil law is needed...
Yet wait, what is this and this? Could it be that somebody is talking rubbish?
Or check out the DfT's hefty report around page 107 you can see that the rate of accidents and fatalities is FALLING on rural roads (where this speed limit comes into play). The report is several months out of date but it does show the trend. I couldn't find a newer one.
Someone claiming that something is true without giving an actual link to the source is worthless. If they can show me a report that shows the trend is changing then I'll retract my statements about the matter.
You're basing your argument on emotion and experience rather than the facts.
I always slow down for cyclists and I'm quite happy for severe punishment to be dished out to those who don't. But how will changing the speed limit affect people not giving due regard? They'll still pass on blind bends, they'll still overtake where it's not safe.
The Governments own statistics state that the vast majority of road accidents happen inside the existing speed limit. They also state that most KSIs in this country happen in 30mph zones, where this proposal has no effect. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Britain has a problem with people exceeding the speed limit on rural roads. If there are problems, they are elsewhere.
The BBC had a typically balanced debate on the matter this morning. Their guest was somebody who's daughter had been killed on a rural road by a driver who was off her tits and doing over 70mph. What they didn't add is that the poor young girl was walking along an unlit country lane with no footpath in the middle of the night. None of the contributing factors in that scenario had anything whatsoever to do with the speed limit.
I'd be happy to see any one of those issues addressed but no, let's ignore the real issues because "speeding's bad... mmk."
One final point. The statistics (specifically 3,000 deaths per year) include drunk drivers, heart attack victims, mechanical / tyre failure, and any other way people have found to finish themselves off.
