ADUK Archive

Would this ever happen in Britain?

Thursday 29th OctoberRAISING SPEED LIMITS IS SAFE, US STUDY PROVES
80mph limit brings drivers within the law with no negative safety impact

An experiment to raise speed limits to 80mph in Utah has been declared a success in road safety terms.



Limits can go up, as well as down...Since 2008, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has been allowed to raise posted limits to 80mph from 75mph, but because motorists were already driving at speeds greater than the original limit the effect has been simply to bring drivers within the law, rather than worsen highway safety.

That’s the official view of the UDOT which has been studying the move closely, as described by the department’s deputy director Carlos Braceras:

“"Overall we saw speeds increase between two and three miles per hour," he says. "The speed differentials did increase and we saw no change in accident history, while the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit decreased 20 percent."

According to thenewspaper.com which has reported the story, when the speed limit was 75mph, 85th percentile speeds measured between 81 and 85mph - a barely perceptible change from the 83 to 85mph speeds recorded when the 80mph limit was introduced.

The 85th percentile speed represents the speed at which 85 percent of free-flowing traffic feels is the safest, and according to the report engineers have determined that the best safety is achieved when speed limits match that 85th percentile speed.

"One of the concerns when we presented this bill a couple of sessions ago was that people would increase speeds to 90 or 95 and there would be tremendous carnage on the road," State Representative James Dunnigan told thenewspaper.com:

"Even though it has only been a year, that has not happened. And all that's happened is that people haven't changed their speed much -- a little bit -- but they're doing so legally. So by increasing the speed limit to 80, we just made them legal."

Here at PH, it all sounds like a victory for the democratic principle. Whatever would ‘nanny’ think of such a clear-sighted approach to the appropriate setting of speed limits in the UK..?


Nigel ADI
IAM observer

Interesting comment in the original source:

National Motorists Association researcher John Carr reviewed the data and suggested that coverage of speed limit increases always includes dire predictions of increased carnage. He pointed to an accident on the 75 MPH portion of I-15 just after the limit was raised on a nearby stretch as an example of skewed perspectives on the issue.

"It could have been anywhere," Carr wrote. "Inside the 80 MPH zone it would have been taken as proof that the speed limit increase was recklessly endangering drivers. In the 75 zone it was not taken as an indictment of the low speed limit. That is how people think about speed limits. Ignore what they don't want to believe, panic over what they do want to believe."

Sound familiar?

fungus wrote:....And all that's happened is that people haven't changed their speed much -- a little bit -- but they're doing so legally. So by increasing the speed limit to 80, we just made them legal."....

OK, so how about cleaning crime off the streets too. Legalise burgalry & murder!

Nigel

The 85th percentile speed represents the speed at which 85 percent of free-flowing traffic feels is the safest, and according to the report engineers have determined that the best safety is achieved when speed limits match that 85th percentile speed.

That's quite a sentence, so we can deduce that:
1. "best safety" (whatever that is) is achieved when drivers go at the speed they feel safe.
2. People ignore speed limits anyway.
3. Speed limits need only be set after a road has been in use, and set at the speed of the 85th percentile.
4. Speed limits are pointless.

adiNigel wrote:

fungus wrote:....And all that's happened is that people haven't changed their speed much -- a little bit -- but they're doing so legally. So by increasing the speed limit to 80, we just made them legal."....

OK, so how about cleaning crime off the streets too. Legalise burgalry & murder!

Nigel

I don't think that is a fair analogy. For most people burglary and murder are inherently immoral acts which should be proscribed. Most people would not view driving a car at a particular speed to be inherently immoral. Although speed limits are enforceable in themselves without reference to any other concerns (primarily safety) it is the other concerns that the speed limit is introduced to address. If the limit is not improving the situation or makes matters worse then it seems to me reasonable to change the regulation.

MGF wrote:If the limit is not improving the situation or makes matters worse then it seems to me reasonable to change the regulation.

While I am foolish enough to agree with your viewpoint, it appears that evidence based policy is currently out of fashion.

Gareth wrote:it appears that evidence based policy is currently out of fashion.

Can I ask you to expand on that?

Custom24 wrote:

Gareth wrote:it appears that evidence based policy is currently out of fashion.

Can I ask you to expand on that?

See recent news items.

MGF wrote:....Most people would not view driving a car at a particular speed to be inherently immoral....

What? Most people wouldn't think driving through a 30 limit at eg 40mph isn't immoral? i disagree with you there

Speed limits aren't quite so black & white though.

Just because the Americans decide to do something, would make me suspicious immediately, given their road safety record. The report appears to have come from the state authority that implemented the speed limit change so, again, I would be suspisious until an independent report is commisioned. Besides, 1 year isn't long enough to see any real results either way - I'm sure there would have been the odd anomoly in the stats in the years preceding the change.

The same way I will be very suspicious of any stats regarding the Swindon Speed cameras until things have run on for a few years.

Nigel

adiNigel wrote:

MGF wrote:....Most people would not view driving a car at a particular speed to be inherently immoral....

What? Most people wouldn't think driving through a 30 limit at eg 40mph isn't immoral? i disagree with you there

Based on the behaviour of many drivers I'm more inclined to agree with MGF.

adiNigel wrote:

MGF wrote:....Most people would not view driving a car at a particular speed to be inherently immoral....

What? Most people wouldn't think driving through a 30 limit at eg 40mph isn't immoral? i disagree with you there

Most people would think burglary and murder are immoral even if they were legalised. If the speed limit was raised from 30 to 40 would driving at 40 still be immoral?

Driving at 40 in a 30 is only immoral insofar as one is breaking the law. That, to me, is the difference between a regulation - which is inherently amoral - and other laws which are based on acts which are deemed unnacceptable in themselves.

Regulations are not based on principle but on achieving some other objective(s). It follows that their value can only be assessed in terms of how well they achieve those objectives.

MGF wrote:....Driving at 40 in a 30 is only immoral insofar as one is breaking the law.....

We are talking about a 5mph increase in the speed limit from 75mph to 80mph!

It's hardly groundbreaking and I suspect statistically insignificant.

adiNigel wrote:

MGF wrote:....Driving at 40 in a 30 is only immoral insofar as one is breaking the law.....

I'm not even shocked once: I agree with MGF.

Speed limits, and many other motoring laws - an increasing list, in fact - are technical matters, and I don't feel I'm being immoral if I contravene them. I do feel that driving in an unsafe manner would be immoral, if I were to be aware that that was what I was doing, especially if I took no steps to correct the situation.

Best wishes all,
Dave.