A good day to bury bad news?

[jont]

It appears to me that most of these arguments against speed control are rationalisations of a particular perspective. That is that people don't want to be told at what speed they should drive.

I can understand people not wanting to be told what speed to drive at especially when spurious safety claims are made to justify this but concocting equally spurious theories to counter this seems pointless to me.

So by reducto ab absurdum, why don't we move back to having men with red flags walking in front of cars? It would help get the unemployment figures down too.

At some point there will be a trade off in terms of the economic benefits of road transport against the costs of accidents. This benefit may include that some people drive to relax and are therefore more productive at work as well as the more obvious relationships like commuting and freight haulage. And of course enforcing speed limits takes money away from people who might spend it elsewhere and costs in terms of policing/scameras etc.

I'm not aware of any analysis that has been done into these effects to see whether the costs of implementing and enforcing reduced limits outweigh any damage to the economy and reduced accidents - but how you quantify the effects I don't know.

[fungus]

I have noticed a couple of 20mph limits along with some rather vicious speed humps being installed near junctions in Bournemouth. There have also been speed limit reductions on two roads in the region. One, a nsl, reduced to 40, leaving a stretch of about 800yds. at nsl before becoming 30mph in a built up area. The other, a 40 reduced to 30 on a wide semi residential road with a wide hatched area in the centre, and wide verges and pavements with good vision throughout. 30 feels unnaturaly slow on this stretch of road. 40 feels about the right speed.

I find that several of my pupils tend to think that the speed limit is a safe speed, until we have a discusion about it, and they then realise that a speed limit can not be correct for all conditions, and it's driving to conditions that is important. I think that the governments "speed kills" campaign is responsible for fostering this way of thinking.

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer
We seem to have reached a point in this country where the reduction of speed limits is the panacea for all the ills of the road.

I am old enough to remember a time when we could think for ourselves, but in todays politicaly correct society we can't possibly do that, it would make it more difficult for the voiciferous minority to get their way.

[MGF]

It appears to me that most of these arguments against speed control are rationalisations of a particular perspective. That is that people don't want to be told at what speed they should drive.

I can understand people not wanting to be told what speed to drive at especially when spurious safety claims are made to justify this but concocting equally spurious theories to counter this seems pointless to me.

So by reducto ab absurdum, why don't we move back to having men with red flags walking in front of cars? It would help get the unemployment figures down too.

None of my statements have advocated lower speed limits. The point, that hasn't been addressed is why it is necessarily counter-productive to road safety to control drivers' speeds.

At some point there will be a trade off in terms of the economic benefits of road transport against the costs of accidents.

I agree and policy currently treats driving as 'road transport' taking away more and more personal freedom on the roads, treating them as an economic necessity rather than the traditional concept of a public highway. This is perhaps inevitable as roads get busier.

This benefit may include that some people drive to relax and are therefore more productive at work as well as the more obvious relationships like commuting and freight haulage. And of course enforcing speed limits takes money away from people who might spend it elsewhere and costs in terms of policing/scameras etc.

The vast majority of the population don't drive for relaxation or pleasure so this benefit will inevitably be overwhelmed by the more direct economic benefits when it comes to policy.

As for enforcing speed limits the subject of this thread is about not enforcing them by the use of sanctions but by the use of technology. This would leave more money in the pockets of offenders to spend as they wish.

I'm not aware of any analysis that has been done into these effects to see whether the costs of implementing and enforcing reduced limits outweigh any damage to the economy and reduced accidents - but how you quantify the effects I don't know.

As always these analyses don't tend to be conclusive. I think road safety is a bit like the economy; so many variables that it is difficult to pinpoint success or failure to a particular course of action. That is why we end up with principled arguments.

I would agree that when local authorities set limits there appears to be a presumption of a safety benefit in reducing the limit. This is hard to argue against as obviously shorter stopping distances and lower impact speeds are safer than the alternative.

I guess that is one reason why people argue the potential negative effects of speed control to counter this presumption.

[jont]

This benefit may include that some people drive to relax and are therefore more productive at work as well as the more obvious relationships like commuting and freight haulage. And of course enforcing speed limits takes money away from people who might spend it elsewhere and costs in terms of policing/scameras etc.

The vast majority of the population don't drive for relaxation or pleasure so this benefit will inevitably be overwhelmed by the more direct economic benefits when it comes to policy.

As for enforcing speed limits the subject of this thread is about not enforcing them by the use of sanctions but by the use of technology. This would leave more money in the pockets of offenders to spend as they wish.

And technology is free? Every time I've seen a government initiative with heavy reliance on technology it's been hugely overbudget, broken, suffered huge mission creep and inevitably delivered late. If people are paying for this technology in their cars, they aren't having the money to spend elsewhere.

I'm not aware of any analysis that has been done into these effects to see whether the costs of implementing and enforcing reduced limits outweigh any damage to the economy and reduced accidents - but how you quantify the effects I don't know.

As always these analyses don't tend to be conclusive. I think road safety is a bit like the economy; so many variables that it is difficult to pinpoint success or failure to a particular course of action. That is why we end up with principled arguments.

And as usual despite the overall inconclusivity, the government hail anything that remotely supports their cause as a success due to their policies while sweeping everything else under the carpet.

[Gareth]

The point, that hasn't been addressed is why it is necessarily counter-productive to road safety to control drivers' speeds.

I'm not sure how it is clear either way. Without controlled experiments to investigate it is hard to put forward anything other than supposition.

My view of the problem is that there are two distinct parts. The easier is the physical / mechanical - technology is close to being able to provide the means for the state to enforce its rules on the driving public, and if it does so then there will be a cost to implement and one result will be a lack of revenue, so there are two large amounts of money for which reasonable estimates can be made. As an aside, I doubt there is actually much political desire to reduce a source of income without finding another means to raise those amounts, and it strikes me that the same technology will make road pricing extremely easy to implement.

The part that is harder to assess is whether there will be any safety benefits, although that will surely be the aspect that will be sold to the general public. Yes, the upper limit will be limited, but what will happen to driver behaviour? I think the answer is clear - and it can be seen every day in a class of vehicle that already has speed limiters - lorries. It is quite common to see lorries holding to their maximum speed on motorways, and in what I imagine is a misguided attempt to overtake the one in front, a large number appear to think that tail-gating is a safe driving behaviour.

[waremark]

The point, that hasn't been addressed is why it is necessarily counter-productive to road safety to control drivers' speeds.

I'm not sure how it is clear either way. Without controlled experiments to investigate it is hard to put forward anything other than supposition.

How would you conduct controlled experiments? I have the impression that vast amounts have been spent on experiments already, but the outcome was measured in terms of speed reduction, with accident reduction then being extrapolated. This approach seems tatally flawed to me.

[vonhosen]

The point, that hasn't been addressed is why it is necessarily counter-productive to road safety to control drivers' speeds.

I'm not sure how it is clear either way. Without controlled experiments to investigate it is hard to put forward anything other than supposition.

How would you conduct controlled experiments? I have the impression that vast amounts have been spent on experiments already, but the outcome was measured in terms of speed reduction, with accident reduction then being extrapolated. This approach seems tatally flawed to me.

Doesn't the data support that certain groups are at higher risk of collisions than others ?
Doesn't the data show that those who commit motoring violations are a higher risk group ?

[waremark]

Doesn't the data support that certain groups are at higher risk of collisions than others ?
Doesn't the data show that those who commit motoring violations are a higher risk group ?

That's not controversial. But how does that tell you what the effect on accidents will be of technologically limiting speed for all drivers?

On the one hand you will be eliminating violation. On the other you will be taking away the feeling of responsibility for judging a safe speed.

[vonhosen]

Doesn't the data support that certain groups are at higher risk of collisions than others ?
Doesn't the data show that those who commit motoring violations are a higher risk group ?

That's not controversial. But how does that tell you what the effect on accidents will be of technologically limiting speed for all drivers?

On the one hand you will be eliminating violation. On the other you will be taking away the feeling of responsibility for judging a safe speed.

You don't take away the responsibility for judging safe speed by limiting the performance of the vehicle, it's still there. You don't push the pedal to the metal if it isn't safe to, that's responsibility. Or are you saying that there is no responsibility when driving an electric scooter flat out, merely because it doesn't have as high a top speed as the next vehicle ?

[PeterE]

Doesn't the data support that certain groups are at higher risk of collisions than others ?
Doesn't the data show that those who commit motoring violations are a higher risk group ?

That's not controversial. But how does that tell you what the effect on accidents will be of technologically limiting speed for all drivers?

On the one hand you will be eliminating violation. On the other you will be taking away the feeling of responsibility for judging a safe speed.

You don't take away the responsibility for judging safe speed by limiting the performance of the vehicle, it's still there. You don't push the pedal to the metal if it isn't safe to, that's responsibility. Or are you saying that there is no responsibility when driving an electric scooter flat out, merely because it doesn't have as high a top speed as the next vehicle ?

No, you don't take away the moral and legal responsibility, but you have to consider the practical effects. If the limiter is set at a speed below that which many drivers would choose in the absence of the limiter, then it follows that for large periods of time they will be driving "on the limiter", as we have seen with lorries.

Regardless of whether it is a "good thing", this will inevitably bring about a change in the psychological approach to driving and to my mind it is fairly obvious it will lead to drivers feeling that much of the responsibility for setting a safe speed has been taken away from them.

[vonhosen]

Doesn't the data support that certain groups are at higher risk of collisions than others ?
Doesn't the data show that those who commit motoring violations are a higher risk group ?

That's not controversial. But how does that tell you what the effect on accidents will be of technologically limiting speed for all drivers?

On the one hand you will be eliminating violation. On the other you will be taking away the feeling of responsibility for judging a safe speed.

You don't take away the responsibility for judging safe speed by limiting the performance of the vehicle, it's still there. You don't push the pedal to the metal if it isn't safe to, that's responsibility. Or are you saying that there is no responsibility when driving an electric scooter flat out, merely because it doesn't have as high a top speed as the next vehicle ?

No, you don't take away the moral and legal responsibility, but you have to consider the practical effects. If the limiter is set at a speed below that which many drivers would choose in the absence of the limiter, then it follows that for large periods of time they will be driving "on the limiter", as we have seen with lorries.

Regardless of whether it is a "good thing", this will inevitably bring about a change in the psychological approach to driving and to my mind it is fairly obvious it will lead to drivers feeling that much of the responsibility for setting a safe speed has been taken away from them.

So are you claiming that driving or riding very low powered vehicles is a breeding ground for irresponsibility because they haven't go the ability to go as fast as the maximum the driver might consider appropriate to circumstances ?
We should all be driving & riding very high powered vehicles to enhance our responsibility ?
Restricted power output for new young bikers (for instance) is totally the wrong idea ?

[MGF]

This benefit may include that some people drive to relax and are therefore more productive at work as well as the more obvious relationships like commuting and freight haulage. And of course enforcing speed limits takes money away from people who might spend it elsewhere and costs in terms of policing/scameras etc.

The vast majority of the population don't drive for relaxation or pleasure so this benefit will inevitably be overwhelmed by the more direct economic benefits when it comes to policy.

As for enforcing speed limits the subject of this thread is about not enforcing them by the use of sanctions but by the use of technology. This would leave more money in the pockets of offenders to spend as they wish.

And technology is free? Every time I've seen a government initiative with heavy reliance on technology it's been hugely overbudget, broken, suffered huge mission creep and inevitably delivered late. If people are paying for this technology in their cars, they aren't having the money to spend elsewhere.

Of course not but it will most likely be absorbed along with the cost of all the other safety technology you have in your car that you might not want or use.
The point is that current speeding offenders will no longer be paying fines and will be able to choose what else to spend this money on. This appeared to be a concern of yours.

I'm not aware of any analysis that has been done into these effects to see whether the costs of implementing and enforcing reduced limits outweigh any damage to the economy and reduced accidents - but how you quantify the effects I don't know.

As always these analyses don't tend to be conclusive. I think road safety is a bit like the economy; so many variables that it is difficult to pinpoint success or failure to a particular course of action. That is why we end up with principled arguments.

And as usual despite the overall inconclusivity, the government hail anything that remotely supports their cause as a success due to their policies while sweeping everything else under the carpet.

My point is that many people who oppose the use of speed controls fall into the same trap of dismissing them as counter-productive. This can be seen in some of the quotes here.

At least TripleS is honest and opposes such controls on the basis of his personal freedom, even to the extent of choosing to break the speed limit. This seems to me to be a perfectly valid position to take.

If opposition is to be based on road safety then the arguments need to be more solid in my view.

[MGF]

Doesn't the data support that certain groups are at higher risk of collisions than others ?
Doesn't the data show that those who commit motoring violations are a higher risk group ?

That's not controversial. But how does that tell you what the effect on accidents will be of technologically limiting speed for all drivers?

On the one hand you will be eliminating violation. On the other you will be taking away the feeling of responsibility for judging a safe speed.

You don't take away the responsibility for judging safe speed by limiting the performance of the vehicle, it's still there. You don't push the pedal to the metal if it isn't safe to, that's responsibility. Or are you saying that there is no responsibility when driving an electric scooter flat out, merely because it doesn't have as high a top speed as the next vehicle ?

No, you don't take away the moral and legal responsibility, but you have to consider the practical effects. If the limiter is set at a speed below that which many drivers would choose in the absence of the limiter, then it follows that for large periods of time they will be driving "on the limiter", as we have seen with lorries.

What is the difference between driving 'on the limiter' and driving 'at the limit' which is what most people currently do?

It appears your argument is based on compliance with speed limits being counter productive to safety and it is by breaking these limits and maintaining a personal choice of speed that provides the best safety benefit.

This appears to me to be different to the claim that limiters preventing drivers going over the limit will undermine driver responsibility in itself.

[MGF]

The point, that hasn't been addressed is why it is necessarily counter-productive to road safety to control drivers' speeds.

I'm not sure how it is clear either way. Without controlled experiments to investigate it is hard to put forward anything other than supposition.

The use of ISA is currently being subject to controlled experiments. Why write it off before you have seen the results of these?

As an aside, I doubt there is actually much political desire to reduce a source of income without finding another means to raise those amounts, and it strikes me that the same technology will make road pricing extremely easy to implement.

I doubt the income from speeding fines (that is the net gain to the treasury) is sufficient for it to interest the government too much. Of course the same applies to any crime which results in a fine. The logic being the government must want people to commit the offence otherwise they would not fine people for doing so. This doesn't seem credible.

I do however believe the self-financing nature of speed limit enforcement doesn't provide resource limitations associated with other forms of law enforcement. There is an important difference between profit making and self-financing.

The part that is harder to assess is whether there will be any safety benefits, although that will surely be the aspect that will be sold to the general public. Yes, the upper limit will be limited, but what will happen to driver behaviour? I think the answer is clear - and it can be seen every day in a class of vehicle that already has speed limiters - lorries. It is quite common to see lorries holding to their maximum speed on motorways, and in what I imagine is a misguided attempt to overtake the one in front, a large number appear to think that tail-gating is a safe driving behaviour.

This point applies to motorways not to, for example, urban areas with restricted roads. If tailgating is shown to be a problem in the trials then surely that will be reflected in the report? Incidentally, the technology could also be used to adjust following distances.

The fact you can identify potential problems with an initiative such as ISA doesn't mean it will inevitably do more harm than good. Perhaps your clarity of thought is realised by focusing on the potential problems rather than the overall effect.

It is possible to identify shortcomings in all aspects of driving, including using the 'system' of car control, but that is not a reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.