National speed limit lowered to 50 Mph

[jmaccyd]

Excess speed, as in over the posted limit, or inappropriate speed as in wrong for the conditions?

Can't remember as this was a figure I dragged from memory. I receive my road safety info from Rospa and Roadpeace so I suspect it was from one of those souces.

[vonhosen]

I don't think you can use the speeds that Police are willing to travel at to establish appropriate speed limits. Their risk management should be different to that of normal driving because what they are attending/doing dictates different levels of risk being acceptable.

Are you saying that police drivers sacrifice safety and travel faster than the speed at which they can stop in the distance they can see to be clear and reasonably expect to remain so?

There is risk in travelling at any speed let alone high speed. Risks of missing something & getting it wrong, or risk from mechanical failure etc etc. The higher the speed the greater the consequences when mistakes (not even necessarily your own) happen.
Being able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear can range from being able to stop hundreds of yards from any obstacle, down to being able to stop less than an inch short of it.
The margins you are prepared to work to in responding to an emergency aren't necessarily the margins you are going to be willing to work to for non emergency cases.
You may well be travelling far in excess of the speed limit & 'just' able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear, only to round a bend & be presented with a car towards on your side of the road overtaking another at speed.
Your being able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear will not save you there but if you hadn't been 50% over the limit you may have valuable seconds that could have averted the collision. The overtaking driver towards may just have been wrongly assuming that no-one would be exceeding the limit towards when they decided to go on their overtake.
Safety & progress are relative terms.

[Søren]

I don't think you can use the speeds that Police are willing to travel at to establish appropriate speed limits. Their risk management should be different to that of normal driving because what they are attending/doing dictates different levels of risk being acceptable.

Are you saying that police drivers sacrifice safety and travel faster than the speed at which they can stop in the distance they can see to be clear and reasonably expect to remain so?

There is risk in travelling at any speed let alone high speed. Risks of missing something & getting it wrong, or risk from mechanical failure etc etc. The higher the speed the greater the consequences when mistakes (not even necessarily your own) happen.
Being able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear can range from being able to stop hundreds of yards from any obstacle, down to being able to stop less than an inch short of it.
The margins you are prepared to work to in responding to an emergency aren't necessarily the margins you are going to be willing to work to for non emergency cases.
You may well be travelling far in excess of the speed limit & 'just' able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear, only to round a bend & be presented with a car towards on your side of the road overtaking another at speed.
Your being able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear will not save you there but if you hadn't been 50% over the limit you may have valuable seconds that could have averted the collision. The overtaking driver towards may just have been wrongly assuming that no-one would be exceeding the limit towards when they decided to go on their overtake.
Safety & progress are relative terms.

I can't argue against the physics as a standalone subject, but collision causation is inextricably linked with many other sciences too. If appropriate speed is more stimulating and encouraging than rigorous, concentration eking compliance with the speed limit, and I believe it is, there would be a concentration dividend to be gained. I believe the infinitessimally small number (none?) who are killed by the difference in physics between the speed limit and the 'appropriate' speed would be overwhelmed by the benefits gained by improvement in cognitive state.

There is another aspect not often considered, but significant, when speed limits are touted as the primary safety barometer.
Drivers will gradually over time be encouraged to drive closer to the speed limit rather than the appropriate speed for the conditions, especially as more and more speed limits are posted. This will cause them to want to drive at speeds far higher than appropriate in many busy urban situations, because the speed limit 'tells' them to.

I endorse the persuasive argument that the very tools, policies and arguments that are trying to convince us that the speed limits are right and need to be rigidly obeyed, are in fact the very factors and dogma that are causing much more inappropriate speed than before, especially where the appropriate speed is below the speed limit.

[jont]

Drivers will gradually over time be encouraged to drive closer to the speed limit rather than the appropriate speed for the conditions, especially as more and more speed limits are posted. This will cause them to want to drive at speeds far higher than appropriate in many busy urban situations, because the speed limit 'tells' them to.

I endorse the persuasive argument that the very tools, policies and arguments that are trying to convince us that the speed limits are right and need to be rigidly obeyed, are in fact the very factors and dogma that are causing much more inappropriate speed than before, especially where the appropriate speed is below the speed limit.

Very well said Soren. Anecdotally I increasingly seem aware of this in urban situations - especially as drivers seem to think 10%+2 over the limit is okay, and so are doing 35mph where 25 would be too quick. This will only lead to further calls for a reduction in the limit...

I've had conversations with a few people who haven't really thought that 30mph might be too fast in some situations and seem to think that because it's within the limit it must be safe

[vonhosen]

Drivers will gradually over time be encouraged to drive closer to the speed limit rather than the appropriate speed for the conditions, especially as more and more speed limits are posted. This will cause them to want to drive at speeds far higher than appropriate in many busy urban situations, because the speed limit 'tells' them to.

I endorse the persuasive argument that the very tools, policies and arguments that are trying to convince us that the speed limits are right and need to be rigidly obeyed, are in fact the very factors and dogma that are causing much more inappropriate speed than before, especially where the appropriate speed is below the speed limit.

Surely you report more people for inappropriate speed within speed limits than you do for being in excess of the limit if that is what you observe. If you don't why not if you assert this to be the case ?

Although you quoted my post I don't see much in yours arguing with my position that the margins an emergency driver would be prepared to drive to should be different to that of someone driving ordinarily, including emergency service drivers not in response mode (which is the point my post was addressing).

[jmaccyd]

Drivers will gradually over time be encouraged to drive closer to the speed limit rather than the appropriate speed for the conditions, especially as more and more speed limits are posted. This will cause them to want to drive at speeds far higher than appropriate in many busy urban situations, because the speed limit 'tells' them to.

I endorse the persuasive argument that the very tools, policies and arguments that are trying to convince us that the speed limits are right and need to be rigidly obeyed, are in fact the very factors and dogma that are causing much more inappropriate speed than before, especially where the appropriate speed is below the speed limit.

Very well said Soren. Anecdotally I increasingly seem aware of this in urban situations - especially as drivers seem to think 10%+2 over the limit is okay, and so are doing 35mph where 25 would be too quick. This will only lead to further calls for a reduction in the limit...

I've had conversations with a few people who haven't really thought that 30mph might be too fast in some situations and seem to think that because it's within the limit it must be safe

Sadly, in my experience the 30MPH limit is completly ignored by the vast majority of drivers even when it is clearly not safe to proceed at anything like that speed. Indeed its not the 30 plus a few that is the problem it is the 40 and a bit more that most proceed at. The only time speed does slow is with the presence of a speed camera or a marked car

[Søren]

Drivers will gradually over time be encouraged to drive closer to the speed limit rather than the appropriate speed for the conditions, especially as more and more speed limits are posted. This will cause them to want to drive at speeds far higher than appropriate in many busy urban situations, because the speed limit 'tells' them to.

I endorse the persuasive argument that the very tools, policies and arguments that are trying to convince us that the speed limits are right and need to be rigidly obeyed, are in fact the very factors and dogma that are causing much more inappropriate speed than before, especially where the appropriate speed is below the speed limit.

Surely you report more people for inappropriate speed within speed limits than you do for being in excess of the limit if that is what you observe.

Most of the Sec 3 prosecutions I report have no real reference to the speed limit, other then to say (if I have this info), "At the time of the offence the vehicle was being driven at xmph. The speed limit on that road is xmph."

The problem (identified in your implied question) is - is the driving recognised as offensive (careless/dangerous) by the general public and the prosecutors? A driver driving along a busy shop lined town centre thoroughfare a metre or less away from parked cars and vans at 29mph in a speed limit of 30mph is driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions. Is that a careless speed within the definition of Sec3? Is it, in the absence of other factors, prosecutable for Sec3? Even if there was a collision between that driver and a drunken pedestrian falling into the road, would the driver's speed be seen as too fast for the circumstances in respect of a criminal prosecution? Careless driving for these circumstances may be doubtful, although the civil courts will take a different view when apportioning blame.

If you stop someone in town for the manner of their driving, their initial argument will be that they were abiding by the speed limit, making that incorrect assessment that, if you were not speeding, then your driving is therefore ok. They can indeed be quite indignant if stopped and questioned about their driving. Further explanation by myself or colleagues at the time will hopefully lead to a better degree of understanding. The option for us to consider prosecution for careless is always there, but in reality it doesn’t happen because it won’t stand the decision makers tests for prosecution, sometimes even when there is a collision exacerbated by the inappropriate but legal speed.

Although you quoted my post I don't see much in yours arguing with my position that the margins an emergency driver would be prepared to drive to should be different to that of someone driving ordinarily, including emergency service drivers not in response mode (which is the point my post was addressing).

I replied to your post from the point of view that it was an explanation of the physics of a collision, rather than the other point you were making, which I agree entirely with. Unfortunately the 'margins' are wooly, and are inversely proportional to an unforseen adverse consequence.

[Søren]

Sadly, in my experience the 30MPH limit is completly ignored by the vast majority of drivers even when it is clearly not safe to proceed at anything like that speed. Indeed its not the 30 plus a few that is the problem it is the 40 and a bit more that most proceed at. The only time speed does slow is with the presence of a speed camera or a marked car

You're experiences are quite different from mine then. Sure some ignore the 30s, some drive at 40+ through them, but do the vast majority exceed the speed limit when it's clearly not safe to drive at a much slower speed?

A bit of hyperbole methinks...

[vonhosen]

Drivers will gradually over time be encouraged to drive closer to the speed limit rather than the appropriate speed for the conditions, especially as more and more speed limits are posted. This will cause them to want to drive at speeds far higher than appropriate in many busy urban situations, because the speed limit 'tells' them to.

I endorse the persuasive argument that the very tools, policies and arguments that are trying to convince us that the speed limits are right and need to be rigidly obeyed, are in fact the very factors and dogma that are causing much more inappropriate speed than before, especially where the appropriate speed is below the speed limit.

Surely you report more people for inappropriate speed within speed limits than you do for being in excess of the limit if that is what you observe.

Most of the Sec 3 prosecutions I report have no real reference to the speed limit, other then to say (if I have this info), "At the time of the offence the vehicle was being driven at xmph. The speed limit on that road is xmph."

The problem (identified in your implied question) is - is the driving recognised as offensive (careless/dangerous) by the general public and the prosecutors? A driver driving along a busy shop lined town centre thoroughfare a metre or less away from parked cars and vans at 29mph in a speed limit of 30mph is driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions. Is that a careless speed within the definition of Sec3? Is it, in the absence of other factors, prosecutable for Sec3? Even if there was a collision between that driver and a drunken pedestrian falling into the road, would the driver's speed be seen as too fast for the circumstances in respect of a criminal prosecution? Careless driving for these circumstances may be doubtful, although the civil courts will take a different view when apportioning blame.

If you stop someone in town for the manner of their driving, their initial argument will be that they were abiding by the speed limit, making that incorrect assessment that, if you were not speeding, then your driving is therefore ok. They can indeed be quite indignant if stopped and questioned about their driving. Further explanation by myself or colleagues at the time will hopefully lead to a better degree of understanding. The option for us to consider prosecution for careless is always there, but in reality it doesn’t happen because it won’t stand the decision makers tests for prosecution, sometimes even when there is a collision exacerbated by the inappropriate but legal speed.

So if I understand you right you are saying inappropriate speed under the speed limit is the greatest threat, but you can do nothing about it other than words of advice (which many of those who you stop will view as toothless as you have no means to enforce it), because the establishment doesn't recognise the threat & they won't accept your evidence of that threat as you see it. The establishment instead prefers to merely discount it because your accused is shown to be travelling under the speed limit. In short you are saying the CPS/Court doesn't trust your judgement or evidence, preferring instead to say any speed under the limit is an appropriate speed in law.

If I have understood you correctly & your aim is to do something about it you are in the wrong job, because you are going to have to address the establishment view before you can even start to effectively bother with the end user who you are powerless to deal with in law.

Good luck.

[jmaccyd]

Sadly, in my experience the 30MPH limit is completly ignored by the vast majority of drivers even when it is clearly not safe to proceed at anything like that speed. Indeed its not the 30 plus a few that is the problem it is the 40 and a bit more that most proceed at. The only time speed does slow is with the presence of a speed camera or a marked car

You're experiences are quite different from mine then. Sure some ignore the 30s, some drive at 40+ through them, but do the vast majority exceed the speed limit when it's clearly not safe to drive at a much slower speed?

A bit of hyperbole methinks...

No, its not hyperbole to say what you think. It is my opionion gleaned from driving 35 000 miles a year for the last fifteen years (almost all in urban 30MPH areas, I do very little motorway driving) The only stretches of road I see real respect for the 30MPH limit, despite what most now know about casualty survival at speeds higher than that, are roads that have speed cameras on them

[crr003]

The only stretches of road I see real respect for the 30MPH limit, despite what most now know about casualty survival at speeds higher than that, are roads that have speed cameras on them

But isn't the lack of respect simply due to the fact that many roads are having speed limits artifically reduced (below sensible speed limits) to meet the "SPEEDS KILLS" dogma?
It'll be interesting to see how you feel about driving around at 20 mph in BUA after the relevant organizations beat the Government into submission.
Sensible application of speed is required, not a blanket reduction of speed limits.

[Søren]

So if I understand you right you are saying inappropriate speed under the speed limit is the greatest threat, but you can do nothing about it other than words of advice (which many of those who you stop will view as toothless as you have no means to enforce it), because the establishment doesn't recognise the threat & they won't accept your evidence of that threat as you see it. The establishment instead prefers to merely discount it because your accused is shown to be travelling under the speed limit. In short you are saying the CPS/Court doesn't trust your judgement or evidence, preferring instead to say any speed under the limit is an appropriate speed in law.

Completely wrong I'm afraid.

What I am saying is that, in the urban area, inappropriate speed under the limit is a significantly greater fatality causation factor than appropriate speed above the limit. My best guess of the comparison would be 100 to none, we are not talking about the big causation culprits like boy racer activity, thrill seeking, drink driving etc. But in the sphere of speeding behaviours among compliant generally law abiding drivers, (the arena in which speed cameras can influence behaviour) it's worth recognising that overenforcement may well be doing more harm than good.

Prosecution is not the only tool in our box von, and many people will learn from some words of advice about their driving, whether it be tailgating, whether it be considering his potential effect on a pedestrian who is looking the wrong way as he steps out.

As has been discussed on a few different forums, the law is often a blunt tool - a proxy to the desired behaviours. My concern is that if we emphasise one aspect too much (speed compliance), we instill the wrong balance, hence the wrong behaviours, through failure to place enough significance on the important driver skills.

If I have understood you correctly & your aim is to do something about it you are in the wrong job, because you are going to have to address the establishment view before you can even start to effectively bother with the end user who you are powerless to deal with in law.

Good luck.

I have no problem with helping chipping away at glaringly flawed establishment dogma while continuing in the job I enjoy. I see no conflict, indeed I see more conflict of principle in standing back saying and doing nothing, toeing the line. As with every job, I might say a little more if I wasn't gainfully employed, but I have plenty to say on the inside, and my views are almost totally endorsed by the sharp end ranks, the ones who know the job and see the consequences of policy.

[Søren]

Sadly, in my experience the 30MPH limit is completly ignored by the vast majority of drivers even when it is clearly not safe to proceed at anything like that speed. Indeed its not the 30 plus a few that is the problem it is the 40 and a bit more that most proceed at. The only time speed does slow is with the presence of a speed camera or a marked car

You're experiences are quite different from mine then. Sure some ignore the 30s, some drive at 40+ through them, but do the vast majority exceed the speed limit when it's clearly not safe to drive at a much slower speed?

A bit of hyperbole methinks...

No, its not hyperbole to say what you think. It is my opionion gleaned from driving 35 000 miles a year for the last fifteen years (almost all in urban 30MPH areas, I do very little motorway driving) The only stretches of road I see real respect for the 30MPH limit, despite what most now know about casualty survival at speeds higher than that, are roads that have speed cameras on them

Does 'respect' for the limit in these locales actually equate to better driving, ie more concentration, anticipation, vulnerable road user avoidance strategies etc?
More time and effort is spent concentrating on getting the speed 'right' than concentrating on the important stuff. It's not a good recipe for safe urban driving.

[firstmk1]

...Every 60mph [NSL?] speed limit in Lincolnshire could be cut to 50mph if councillors agree to back campaigners...

So, on the single carriageways the maximum speed of HGVs will be 50mph rather than 40mph. That sounds like good safety logic to me.

[PeterE]

So, on the single carriageways the maximum speed of HGVs will be 50mph rather than 40mph. That sounds like good safety logic to me.

No, a signed limit does not override the national speed limit for vehicles of that type on that road class. I'm surprised that anyone should think it would.