Interactive speed limiters

[Ancient]

Risk compensation is a fact of life, and even assuming there is a direct correlation between downward marginal increments in mph and safety (something think has only been assumed on this thread as a truism rather than argued cogently) it is in play as much as when you choose to drive at the speed limit of 70mph instead of 60mph as when our appalling friends in their Audis drive 80mph instead of 70mph.

I also think you are wearing your rose tinted spectacles in respect of how roads used to be. I am reading a social history of England at the moment, and during many periods of history the main social interaction when on English roads outside of towns came from the highwayman. In later times the level of road deaths was the same, if not higher, than now, despite far fewer journeys.

Arguments relating to social cohesion and lack of exercise may have their place (though not, I respectfully suggest, here) as they have nothing to do with evaluating the 70mph speed limit.

Of course risk compensation is a fact of life, but the driver who is experiencing less subjective risk and who feels safe to drive faster, is putting those outside his car at increased risk. The faster one drives, the less time there is to process information, it really is as simple as that.
I never said I was talking (only) about out of town roads. Our cities and villages are made subjectively dangerous by the behaviour of car drivers http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-li ... e-29372078 and it is subjective danger which frightens people away( as illustrated in that article), thus achieving 'road safety'. Motor vehicles kill far more people every year than highwaymen ever did (except perhaps in their guise as 'Traffic Engineers').

...Breaking someone's leg and throwing them into the air instead of breaking their hip is not improved safety, it is mitigated damage...

Depends how you define "safety" - it's a relative term. Without medical training, I am not in a position to judge whether it's safer to have a hip broken or a leg broken + free air miles... I know which I'd prefer though.

Safety would be improved by them not being hit, damage is mitigated by reducing the effect of their being hit. Safety and danger are not only relative terms, they have both transitive and intransitive meanings; it pays to consider which applies to whom.

The attitude of most drivers (and some here) is that improvements in vehicle control, protection and collision mitigation should mean that cars are allowed to go faster (that the speed limits are outdated because of these improvements)

Maybe I have misunderstood you, and apologies if I have, but your experience appears to differ from mine. What I have constantly come across here and elsewhere is that driving at a posted speed limit does not make that speed safe. Which is something completely different.

Whilst thinking driver do make that connection, most drivers do not. I regularly see driving which simply assumes the road ahead is clear, I have been the victim of such driving and see enough reports of court cases to realise that our society generally does not understand the responsibility required to be in conrol of a motor vehicle (e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6XrQbqgO6Y&feature=youtu.be)

[martine]

...Seatbelt laws did not provide the reduction in road casualties predicted...

Have you got a reference for that?

In any case, even if the reduction was not as large as predicted, seat belts have had a major contribution (some say, the major contribution) to reducing KSI since records began. I do agree your point about risk compensation but I don't believe it completely outweighs technical changes like seat belts, airbags, ABS, ESP.

[Ancient]

It's quite well put in here:
http://rdrf.org.uk/death-on-the-streets-cars-and-the-mythology-of-road-safety/

[michael769]

I'm sorry but you are wrong; risk to others does increase.

I never said it didn't/

It's quite simple, if you look at how roads were used before motor vehicles came to dominate them, they were social interactive places.

Not true. More people were killed on the roads in the days of horse and cart than are today, despite traffic levels and population levels being far lower in those days.

(Source)

Pedestrian safety has improve because pedestrians have learned to keep off the roads (the attitude in society now is that roads belong to cars: Precisely what Churchill said we should avoid!).

But is that a bad thing? We gain massive benefits from the use of motor cars, there are costs but are those costs higher than the benefits?

Breaking someone's leg and throwing them into the air instead of breaking their hip is not improved safety, it is mitigated damage.

And where one cannot prevent one must mitigate.

The attitude of most drivers (and some here) is that improvements in vehicle control, protection and collision mitigation should mean that cars are allowed to go faster (that the speed limits are outdated because of these improvements):

I cannot agree. Despite the massive improvements in vehicle safety there is an ongoing move towards ever lower speeds.

Motor vehicle casualties have been falling steadily since 1949, largely because people have altered their behavior to cope.

Is behavioral alteration such a bad thing? Most of safety (in very walk of life not just road transport) is in addressing human factors, and that requires behavioral alteration.

The downside is reduced socialization in the street (less social cohesion) and (the one we are literally paying for) reduced exercise as car travel increases over non-motorized travel.

You assume that people want to socialize in the street? fear of traffic is an issue for some, but fear of crime is a much greater issue, and simple factors like an preference for being inactive or the weather (who in their right mind would consider it desirable to socialize in the street in a Scottish midwinter?)

The flaw in your argument is that you start from the premise that car transport is a bad thing and the way we use the roads is also a bad thing, without acknowledging the many benefits those bring. While many liberal intellectuals do not like to accept it, people do actually make rational choices and they use their vehicles because it gives them better life than the alternative. Ask anyone if they would prefer being able to socialise in a deserted street as an alternative to their parents who would otherwise be entirely isolated being able to get out and about, or if they would prefer one partner (lets be honest here it will be the wife) to give up work in order to have time to hand carry messages home every day, and prefer to move to a smaller house in a poorer area to afford such a move.

Simple reality is we don't live in a perfect world everything we do involves compromises, and we all have to make compromises.

[Ancient]

I'm sorry but you are wrong; risk to others does increase.

I never said it didn't/

It's quite simple, if you look at how roads were used before motor vehicles came to dominate them, they were social interactive places.

Not true. More people were killed on the roads in the days of horse and cart than are today, despite traffic levels and population levels being far lower in those days.
(Source)

Not borne out by your source I'm afraid, it actually says that the per capita rate was higher; the absolute rate is lower - i.e. fewer were killed than are now, but corrected for population levels, fatalities were higher. Interesting is that they take into account the population changes to produce a statistic favourable to motor vehicles but fail to take into account the effect of better treatments which will tend to reduce current fatalities. A classic case of how to lie with statistics.
In any case the point is moot: Caesar (as your source points out) banned vehicles more powerful than hand-carts from Rome between dawn and dusk: Suggestions of an equivalent ban in London meet strident cries of opposition.

Pedestrian safety has improve because pedestrians have learned to keep off the roads (the attitude in society now is that roads belong to cars: Precisely what Churchill said we should avoid!).

But is that a bad thing? We gain massive benefits from the use of motor cars, there are costs but are those costs higher than the benefits?

Yes, it is a Bad Thing. The associated reduction in walking and cycling has (it is now recognised) significantly added to (some experts say it is responsible for) the massive increase in sedentary diseases in our society. This is directly costing each and every one of us and may be what kills the NHS as a service.
The massive benefits of the IC engine do not need to come attached to the massive dis-benifits which our society is (too slowly) waking up to.

Breaking someone's leg and throwing them into the air instead of breaking their hip is not improved safety, it is mitigated damage.

And where one cannot prevent one must mitigate.

Before mitigation comes prevention: Hierarchy of risk management.

The attitude of most drivers (and some here) is that improvements in vehicle control, protection and collision mitigation should mean that cars are allowed to go faster (that the speed limits are outdated because of these improvements):

I cannot agree. Despite the massive improvements in vehicle safety there is an ongoing move towards ever lower speeds.

Amidst squeals of "War on the motorist" the economic arguments are (too slowly) winning. Attitudes are slow to change though (hence the squeals). I questioned whether the point made (in this thread) that limits were out of date meant that they should come down due to the increased congestion: But no, it was an argument for increased limits due to improvements in 'car safety' = risk compensation. It is that attitude that I am arguing against.

Motor vehicle casualties have been falling steadily since 1949, largely because people have altered their behavior to cope.

Is behavioral alteration such a bad thing? Most of safety (in very walk of life not just road transport) is in addressing human factors, and that requires behavioral alteration.

Obviously not a bad thing if you regard those outside of motor vehicles as a lower form (as per the Hansard quote) who should jump out of the way of the 'superior' driver. Personally I can understand that those outside of motor vehicles have just as much right to be there as I have when in the driving seat. Their journeys and decisions to cross the road are every bit as important as my reasons for driving down it.

The downside is reduced socialization in the street (less social cohesion) and (the one we are literally paying for) reduced exercise as car travel increases over non-motorized travel.

You assume that people want to socialize in the street? fear of traffic is an issue for some, but fear of crime is a much greater issue, and simple factors like an preference for being inactive or the weather (who in their right mind would consider it desirable to socialize in the street in a Scottish midwinter?)

Assume? No... Watch the behaviour in any place where the motor car is tamed, people do indeed socialise in the street. I know several elderly people who bemoan the fact they can no longer sit outside and socialise because of the traffic presence.

The flaw in your argument is that you start from the premise that car transport is a bad thing and the way we use the roads is also a bad thing, without acknowledging the many benefits those bring. While many liberal intellectuals do not like to accept it, people do actually make rational choices and they use their vehicles because it gives them better life than the alternative. Ask anyone if they would prefer being able to socialise in a deserted street as an alternative to their parents who would otherwise be entirely isolated being able to get out and about, or if they would prefer one partner (lets be honest here it will be the wife) to give up work in order to have time to hand carry messages home every day, and prefer to move to a smaller house in a poorer area to afford such a move.

Simple reality is we don't live in a perfect world everything we do involves compromises, and we all have to make compromises.

People make the choices they need to make in the face of 50 years of car-centric 'road engineering. You are entirely wrong about the premise I start with, our UK road engineering doesn't even produce pleasant driving conditions and entirely fails to produce pleasant living spaces. One of the problems with UK is that any examination of the dis-benefits of our reliance on motor vehicles is seen as an attack on a way of life: This is crazy when those same motorists (you and me) suffer from the congestion caused by the way the car has squeezed the viability of other choices.

[jont]

People make the choices they need to make in the face of 50 years of car-centric 'road engineering. You are entirely wrong about the premise I start with, our UK road engineering doesn't even produce pleasant driving conditions and entirely fails to produce pleasant living spaces. One of the problems with UK is that any examination of the dis-benefits of our reliance on motor vehicles is seen as an attack on a way of life: This is crazy when those same motorists (you and me) suffer from the congestion caused by the way the car has squeezed the viability of other choices.

Not just the car. One of the most regressive taxes is stamp duty. Move work for a new job? Either pay up to commute, or cough up a significant fraction of a years wages for the privilege of having a shorter commute.

As for living without a car - after you. Please do demonstrate how wonderful it is and try to argue people round that way. Don't bludgeon them because you don't like their choices.

[vieuxtigre]

This is my second attempt at a lengthy post on this topic, the first having been deleted by the site without trace. Apologies, therefore, if this one is more disjointed and my apparent mood more irascible.

THe thread seems to have evolved into a discussion on the philosophy of speed limits and I'm provoked to express some views on that before reverting to the "nuts & bolts" issue of limiters.

1. Speed limits. In an ideal world they wouldn't exist. Don't take my word for it. Consider such luminaries as John Lyon or the late LJK Setright. Lyon left BSM as an HPC co-driver when the government first introduced a "Temporary" NSL. Setright, ever iconoclastic (or provocative) once opined that there should only be one motoring offence; dangerous driving. That would be great in a utopian world, perhaps one in which the standard of the driving test were higher,say IAM level, driving licences lasted no more than 5 or 10 years, thus requiring regular re-testing, and there were, perhaps, some form of licence grading with holders of the top grades earning certain privileges such as exemption from certain speed limits in certain circumstances. Sadly, successive governments have eschewed the opportunity of fostering real road safety by letting everybody onto the roads with the minimal level of competence and with a lifetime permit. There is an inverse relationship between driving standards and the amount of legislation and control, including speed limits, which it is then necessary to impose in order to mitigate the resultant mayhem. This is what has occurred. Hardly surprising that governments have opted this way given the massive and price-inelastic tax base mass motoring gives them.

As to the limits themselves they have several effects. Firstly, they've become a political tool. Local residents complain to the authorities that they don't like traffic speeds in their village or past their house. Local politician, seeking to canvass votes, is lobbied and takes up cause. Hey presto, county traffic engineers impose a new, lower speed limit. An NSL becomes a 50 or a 40mph zone. When I moved to Kent there was a proposal to reduce the 30mph limit to 20 in the high street of my local town. I asked how many accidents there had been in the last few years involving death or serious injury in which speed was a causative factor. I got no answer. When questioning why, therefore, they wished to reduce the limit I was simply,told because the residents wanted it. This resident didn't! Secondly, as The Insanity stated earlier, the increasing number of different limits on increasingly shorter stretches of road causes confusion and leads to non-compliance as drivers don't expect so many signs and miss some of them or simply don't believe and thus disregard them. There is a strong case, in my view, for the simplification of limits Insanity advocates rather than the current increasing complication. Thirdly it's a de-skilling exercise. The more and lower the speed limits imposed on drivers the less they have to and are thus able to make judgements for themselves. JC has made the point that just because a limit exists it doesn't automatically mean that it's safe to drive at that limit in all circumstances. Equally, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily dangerous to exceed it in some circumstances - emergency service drivers do, after all. The point is that if drivers are not taught such skills and required to use them, they will always lack them and so more imposition of more limits will be necessary to save them from themselves (and more importantly, others from them). It's a sort of reductio ad absurdam. Where this leaves us in all trundling around nose-to-tail in a half-attentive daze, paying little attention to anything much and just following the vehicle in front. Woe betide the driver who tries to overtake, however safe it might be; being perceived to "step out of line" is becoming increasingly socially unacceptable in this environment.

2. Limiters:- We already have them, albeit fixed ones. HGVs have them, some other vehicles have them as per one of the above posts, and there is an informal agreement among European manufacturers to limit all cars to 155mph, apparently. The Germans seem to comply with this, the Italian supercar makers don't. Several brochures I have for cars from German makers show camera-based speed limit indicators as options, claiming to display a picture of a speed limit sign on a screen on the dash. My car does this on a larger screen, the windscreen, using that miracle of technology known as my eyes. I can't see that a camera can see a slime-covered sign hidden in the bushes any better than the human eye. So the only viable system I can see working must be GPS-based. That would work so long as the GPS data is accurate enough. Virtually all the technology necessary is already in most new cars. Let's face it, by interrogating the speed data logged on the car's ECU and correlating it with the GPS data on the satnav the car can already provide all of the information necessary to secure a prosecution for speeding. It would only take a small change in the law for this to become reality. The golden age of motoring is, indeed, behind us. Welcome to the 21st century!

Vieuxtigre

[TripleS]

I am disappointed to learn implicitly from this thread that excessive speeds seem to be acceptable.

I don't believe that members of this forum regard excessive speeds as being acceptable.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[jcochrane]

I am disappointed to learn implicitly from this thread that excessive speeds seem to be acceptable.

I think that there may be different understandings of phrases like speeding, excessive speed etc.
In the dim and distant past very few roads were speed restricted . Speeding, excessive speeding etc. referred to speeds that were unsafe or dangerous, there was no connection with speed limits because so very few existed.

Unfortunately these phrases have been picked up by "do gooders" in particular and have been used by them to refer to any speed over a speed limit irrespective of whether unsafe or not. Which is incorrect. A speed over a speed limit is only that and does not refer to its safety. A speed over or under a speed limit may be unsafe and correctly named speeding or excessive speeding but that is another issue.

It would be wrong of you to assume that any on here have said or even implied that excessive speeding (in the true and original meaning) find it acceptable.

[WhoseGeneration]

I am disappointed to learn implicitly from this thread that excessive speeds seem to be acceptable.

I think that there may be different understandings of phrases like speeding, excessive speed etc.
In the dim and distant past very few roads were speed restricted . Speeding, excessive speeding etc. referred to speeds that were unsafe or dangerous, there was no connection with speed limits because so very few existed.

Unfortunately these phrases have been picked up by "do gooders" in particular and have been used by them to refer to any speed over a speed limit irrespective of whether unsafe or not. Which is incorrect. A speed over a speed limit is only that and does not refer to its safety. A speed over or under a speed limit may be unsafe and correctly named speeding or excessive speeding but that is another issue.

It would be wrong of you to assume that any on here have said or even implied that excessive speeding (in the true and original meaning) find it acceptable.

I totally agree.

[fungus]

I am disappointed to learn implicitly from this thread that excessive speeds seem to be acceptable.

I think that there may be different understandings of phrases like speeding, excessive speed etc.
In the dim and distant past very few roads were speed restricted . Speeding, excessive speeding etc. referred to speeds that were unsafe or dangerous, there was no connection with speed limits because so very few existed.

Unfortunately these phrases have been picked up by "do gooders" in particular and have been used by them to refer to any speed over a speed limit irrespective of whether unsafe or not. Which is incorrect. A speed over a speed limit is only that and does not refer to its safety. A speed over or under a speed limit may be unsafe and correctly named speeding or excessive speeding but that is another issue.


It would be wrong of you to assume that any on here have said or even implied that excessive speeding (in the true and original meaning) find it acceptable.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

[MGF]

My understanding is that 'excessive' speed is speed in excess of the speed limit and reading GW's posts he appears to be giving it the same meaning.

Unsuitable speeds for the conditions are usually termed 'inappropriate'

Inappropriate speed can be too slow as well as too fast. Some refer to all excessive speeds as inappropriate but that does change its meaning somewhat.

[Graham Wright]

One judgement reported was

"Expeeding the seed limit".

[TheInsanity1234]

One judgement reported was

"Expeeding the seed limit".

Aye, 30 seeds per square foot! Absolutely terrible!

[fungus]

One judgement reported was

"Expeeding the seed limit".

Aye, 30 seeds per square foot! Absolutely terrible!