Road deaths
 

It's being reported in some of the sunday papers that the national speed limit on single-carriageway country roads is to drop from 60 to 50mph in the belief that this will reduce road deaths. Whilst this is a noble idea, should we strive to achieve 0 road deaths or accept that it's an impossible task and for want of a better phrase 'settle on a compromise' figure? Should the majority of drivers in this country (20+ million as a guess) have to endure this ridiculously low limit to save 500-ish lives. I know that most motorcyclists would be aware that lack of concentration rather than speed is the major factor in road accidents despite what the goverment may say, am i being stupid, selfish and heartless or realistic?

I for one would agree on your comments,there are some very uninteligent people sitting behind the wheel of there car and no amount of speed control on our roads will make them any safer. When you watch some thing like "Britains worst driver " on the TV it beggars believe that we all have a laugh at these "special" people.Just how many are "Out there" we will never know. Maybe we should have a IQ test before we are allowed to hold a licence to be able to kill some one . Most of the accidents we hear about on here are caused not by the rider but by the little of lady doing the U turn or the numskull not looking or planning ahead and so makes a right turn in front of you. Stupidity and inexperiance will allways be a facture in statistics when it comes to road accidents but if people imitate the likes a pheasant or partridge and just "Go for it " its inevitable what will eventually happen and no amount of speed or lack of it will make much differant. As all ways the good must endear to the bad and will all ways pay the price. We have had "limits" ever since the first motor car appeared on the road,thankfully the man with the red flag has long gone (or has he) Most people use the road sensibly and with a certain feeling of Survival and those with a death wish soldier on,thats life. So why does the goverment not take as much interest in saving all the smokers from a certain death that is just as life threatning as any "speedster" or may be thats just not PC to infringe on some ones personel liberty. Smoking Kill 100X more that Speeding ever did but we have been saying that for years to no effect. I say to hell with it and let people kill themselves I dont think a little round sign with a 50 on it will make much differance,just like the one on the M1 saying 70. 4D

They had it right back in 1958, its gone downhill since then

The first motorway opened in Britain was the M6 (M=Motorway). It was known as the Preston Bypass. It was opened in 1958.

When it was planned, the Preston Bypass was seen as the first piece of a large network. It was deemed a success and led to the construction of a second motorway, the M1, opened in 1959.


There was no speed limit

Fordie, the deaths on country roads are not really about little old ladies doing U turns but more about inexperienced youngsters in cars and middle aged bikers going faster than their own capabilities should allow.

Ariel, Ive seen it all Especially on track days ????? So what comes first Experiance ---- Age = Age ---- Experiance Commonsense sits some where in the middle I hope. The whole reason we ride bikes is for the Thrill take away that and get out the pipe and slippers. Do you really think we can stop the young boyracers or the middle aged biker from harming themselves because of there own in-experiance. Like most thinks in life the more you do the better you become, dont try and be the hero 1st time out, all ways run at your own pace. Pace kills not distance, both experiance and age has taught me that. Have we not all been the boyracer at some stage in our lives ? Its only when the 8hit hits the fan and you experiance that dreaded feeling that you did some thing stupid and were lucky to get away with it that it sinks in. Its very rare to have a next time, I don't really have an answer apart from training and riding with experianced people but not everone has that privilage. It will soon be silly season and all those people waiting for the better weather to arrive will be out there,sharing the roads with the experianced and the knobheads and the boyracers. I no it you no it Its down to us, the road user at the end of the day. So ride safe thats all you can do. 4D

Imposing a speed limit that is 10 mph less than it currently stands is just going to bolster up the road minister's credibility with the harumphing classes that frequent the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail. It is pure headline grabbing propaganda from a ministry that has bugger all else to do except try to make headlines with peurile gesture politics.

Imagine the discussion around the Ministers desk (you can almost see Jim Hacker sitting there fro 'Yes, Minister')

Hacker: Can we do anything about persistent drunk drivers...they're causing a lot of accidents even though they're a tiny minority

Sir Humphrey: No, I'm afraid we can't minister, the Chief Constables don't have the resources and the Home Office won't budge because they can't get the funding now that the Treasury has bailed out the imbeciles that run the banks.

Hacker: Well surely we can catch the people who've just smoked a bung of skunk? They're a minority but they do cause a lot of accidents.

Sir Humphrey: Well, I'm afraid not minister there are no reliable tests available for all the drugs that people are doing before they drive and on top of that we have the same resource shortages as catching the drunks.

Hacker: But what about the people who are phoning and texting each other whilst driving?

Sir Humphrey: Well I'm afraid we delegated the responsibility for catching nearly every traffic offence to 'safety cameras' a long while ago minister and we can't turn the clock back now

Hacker: So what are we going to do to show the Daily Mail that we're actually doing something for the tax payer's money?

Sir Humphrey: Might I suggest that we impose blanket restrictions on the law abiding majority sir? After all they'll be the last to complain now won't they?


Frankly, lowering speed limits further is not going to save any lives because by definition the boy racers and the middle aged born again biker are ignoring the existing speed limit anyway, it just gives 'outraged of Tunbridge Wells' another excuse to Harumph over their G & T when the Daily Mail reports that the deceased was doing 40 mph over the speed limit instead of the 30 mph that they could claim now.

In fact I would argue that some of the speed restrictions will actually be counterproductive (just like the ludicrous 40mph speed limits in open countryside that exist purely because they link villages that are 2-3 miles apart) because they will take the actual speed limit down below the 85th percentile (http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speedlimits.html) and cause crashes through boredom, inattention and a false sense of security

Indeed Jools, it ain't Rocket Science we might as well all go back to the days of Horse and Cart and even then some silly barstard will fall of one of those and end up a statistic. 4D

You are so right. Reducing the speed limits to these ridiculously low levels will contribute nothing towards road safety. In fact, the frustrations caused will probably increase road deaths rather than reduce them.
The only people who will derive satisfaction from all this will be the bicycle clip brigade and the sandal wearing, carbon footprint obsessed Guardianista.

Jools and others have hit the nail on the head...this is about gesture politics, allied to the commitment all govts have made to reduce traffic deaths. (Btw, more bang per governmental buck if you can reduce the number of most-at-risk road users by preventing them from getting a license at all by reducing the number of test centres available).
And what is it which is fuelling this lemming-like rush to slow down?? One slogan. The big lie. The jackpot. El Gordo.

Speed Kills

If this were true, of course, we'd all be dead, as we are hurtling around the sun at squillions of mph, but it is short enough that even a Mail reader's wife can remember it when hubby accelerates too hard on the shopping run.
But, "Relative speed kills" requires actual thought, and introduces the possibility that other factors may be in play. And it does not suit the purposes of those on the wilder shores of ecomentalism.

the phrase is 'inapropriate speed kills'.....its about being unconciously incompetent.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

The Authorities like to cater for the lowest common denominator, be it speed, what we eat, what we drink, etc

We just can't be trusted

Tha age of "we know best" is fully upon us. The age of the individual taking responibility for their own lives and those around to the best of their ability has ended.

The only 100% safe speed is zero.

The Authorities will always take the easy option. Lower speed limits, shows they are doing something and has the potential to rake in more ££££.

Education, improving skills etc costs money and is really only for the "clever few".


Time for me tablets.................and book a trip to the Isle Of Man..........no posted limit over the mountain.........wahoo!

Ray.

One of the other factors in governmental thinking is that once a law is in place it is almost impossible to change it, through the politician's fear of losing potential votes to the propaganda of lobby groups.

Take the 70 mph speed limit for example. Introduced as a temporary measure it soon became permanent, but by the standards of the day it was hardly a limit at all. Why? Because a common or garden family saloon in those days was something like a Ford Anglia 105E, top speed was 75mph on skinny little zero grip crossply tyres with antique suspension. The only reason that the brakes didn't completely overwhelm the available grip of the tyres was because they were miserable little drum brakes that took as long to stop the car as it takes to slow a tanker down. So at 70 mph you'd have been driving the little Ford Anglia at over 9/10ths.

Imagine you applied that logic to the Anglia's great-great-grandson and set the speed limit based on 93% of a common or garden Mondeo 2.2 Tdci...that would make the motorway limit 130 mph. Can't see that happening any time soon.

Don't often make any comments on such topical threads, I agree with all these comments.

But, we hear so much about the death rate of motorcyclist and how dangerous bikes are and the iresponsible riders albeit, born again or the boy racer types.

However we hear very little about the tragic numbers of casualties which are caused by wreckless drivers killing whole families or multiple numbers in car accidents.

I can think of several accidents in the last few months where several people were killed by irresponsible drivers hitting oncoming cars and wipping out a whole family or several occupants.

So wouldn't it be a great idea for this well thinking government, to carry out an experiment in line with the Bejing way of thinking. Cars travel on one day Motorcycles another.

So for example, Monday cars, Tuesday Bikes, Wednesday Cars, Thursday Bikes, Friday Cars, Saturday & Sunday Bikes.

Wouldn't it be interesting for the statistics to see how many drivers and families are wipeed out in comparison to the numbers of riders killed.

Now this is obviously not practical. but if it were possible that the statistics were written in categories of,
Accidents involving cars/Bikes
Accidents involving Bikes/Bikes
Accidents caused by rider error

Someone will come along in a moment and tell me this is how they are compiled, but not from the ones I have seen.

What the stats don't often take into account is the numbers of vehicles on the road ten years ago, in comparison to the numbers of vehicles on the road today.

There are so many factors now that were not aparent 10-20 or 30 years ago, speed is not the only factor.

We see all too regulary how illegal imegrants, youngsters and foreign drivers can drive a car with no UK licence or any idea of legislation, so where should the new legislation start, surely reducing the speed limit is not solving the problem. People will still exceed the limit if it is 60 or 70 miles per hour.

Don't know the answer I'm afraid, but neither do the law makers. But I fee slowing people down will increase convictions for exceeding the limit which generates revenue!

There I've had a little moan now I'll get back in my box and come out when its rattled again.

Personally i think that if this limit comes into place the death rate will increase. My train of thought is along the lines of people who are mollycoddled tend to switch off and therefore are sucked into a false sense of security, i think the way to go would be for everybody to only be able to insure their vehicles third party only, we'll soon see if people are prepared to take the same risks.

Speed does not kill on its own, but it is still one of the most common factors in road accident. With poor visibility, tireness, unsafe vehicles, poor standard of driving, etc... It is not rocket science that tackling as many of those factors will reduce the number of accidents and as such the number of deaths on the road. Saving 500 more lives is priceless.

And look at the roads in this country (in the South East at least...) they are just not fit for speed.

Brands Hatch is though.

Incoming :lol:

in the paper i read it said accidents are caused by vehicles overtaking.they do so due to women in 4+4s and old farts in fiestas doing 35-40 mph.drivers behind get frustrated and overtake when it is not safe to do so.lowering the speed limit will have no effect.

What paper do your read? ;)

From the 2007 road casualties annual report of the Dpt for transport:


We can't really make a direct link between "overtaking" and "loss of control" can we?

The few times I have lost control of my car on a public road was due to an excessive speed.
And the many times I lost it on track was for the same reason, plus some knackered tyres, nutters passing me on the apex, etc... :lol:
Did I mention my forks as well? :D

( http://www.dft.gov.uk/pdf/pgr/statis...atbritain20071 )

Having represented the club on the local motorcycle casualty reduction forum since its inception you'd be very interested to hear the outcome of an in depth speed statistics analysis that we carried out. Some high speeds (some too high to be accurately clocked by the equipment) and not a single accident during the collection of info due to excessive speed.

I know it is my personal hobby horse but I'm waiting for the day the TRUE statistics (if that isn't a contradiction in terms?) of how many KSI's are caused by the illegal use of handheld mobile phones.

Why won't the police have a high profile purge on that? Surely anybody texting or pi$$ing about trying to dial a number or juggle a phone is far more likely to cause injury or death to another road user than a driver not wearing a seat belt?

When you think of all the distractions available to car drivers that bikers do not have, it stands to reason that bikers are concentrating on the road ahead where as its more or less certain that car drivers 60-80% of the time are either talking on their phone, texting, reading the paper, playing with their CD collection, lighting up a smoke, talking to their passenger, shouting at the kids, looking at a map\satnav, picking their nose, eating their bigmac they just bought from the drive through or one of a hundred things that can cause distractions to a car driver that is denied to bikers, its these things that should be addressed before they look at reducing speed limits.

Exactly but it is always easier to pass the blame.

Without doubt some people ride like tw*ts and are just an accident waiting to happen but they by no means represent the majority.

The other thing that I find concerning is the number of people driving who, when you watch how they drive, could never have passed a driving test. There are so many cars on the road now and so few resources to tackle the real issues that all the authorities do is reduce the speed limit and bung in a few more revenue raising cameras.

The sobering thing is that the people behind the road safety campaigns and cameras have probably made the roads less safe by giving the powers that be an excuse to cut costs and cut the numbers of traffic officers.

You can sign the online petition against this here http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/noNSLreduction/

Again a very valid and indisputable point. Interesting to see the number of skid marks near camera sites; could suggest that the drivers who caused them were not paying much attention at the time?