rodk wrote:chriskay wrote:rodk wrote: the the limit actually is a key source of information, particularly as an indicator of the nature and risks posed by the road both to themselves and to all other road users.
That is arrant nonsense.
I wondered what response that would get. Which is why I plucked it directly from the 01/2013 DfT guidance on setting local speed limits. ie :-
As well as being the legal limit, speed limits are a key source of information to road users, particularly as an indicator of the nature and risks posed by that road both to themselves and to all other road users.
That has been in the guidance since 2006. Note that I never said it was the "ONLY source of information...". Anyone who wishes to take issue with this statement would be better contacting DfT and HM Government rather than making personal attacks on myself.
Rod, if you post comments without attribute, or post comments in support of your argument then they will be assumed to be your view and they will be challenged, robustly or otherwise.
That it is a DfT / Gov. view doesn't make it any more valid - if you believe that this is accurate it would be interesting to see your response to the comment about tight bends where the appropriate speed limit is perhaps 10mph and the speed limit could be 30 / 40 / 50 / 60 etc. and speed limit indicates a political decision to limit speed - it used to have a basic correlation to road type within that, but rarely is that now the basis of decision making - it certainly is not an appropriate guide (KEY SOURCE) to choice of speed - and I would hope that a driver going through basic learner training would understand that...
rodk wrote:Neither have I said that driver training is NOT effective. But I would maintain that just like 20mph limits, it is NOT a panacea for everything that is wrong with our roads. You will be far more knowledgable than myself on the benefits of training in skills, values, acuity and conformity with rules and regulations, but I would suggest that rules and regulations decided at a societal (ie national or local government level) are key to providing an environment that fairly and appropriately shares the roads for all road users and one in which training can be effective.
No-one says that road design etc. has no role to play - but it is clear that driver training is the only thing which fundamentally changes driver attitude, if you really believe that our population happily drive around obeying every speed limit, and that speed limits are the way to sort out issues - then presumably we have no speeding convictions and no road traffic accidents each year? If we do, then perhaps speed limits are not the piece of the puzzle that we should be focusing on - road design and speed limits are one clue a good driver uses - however there is so much more to driving, and they are a very very small part of the decision making process - especially as they are increasingly politically motivated and separated from linking them to the actual road type and safety...
I suspect that 90% + of drivers on here drive way below the speed limit in any built up area, and are more likely to be driving at 10 / 15 /etc. mph in a congested urban area where there is a danger of a child running out - they will pick up clues such as children playing / a scooter lying on the pavement / a shop opposite or an ice cream van to which a child might run / the time of day, or time of the year, and the weather indicating whether a child might be playing out, they will spot the elderly and give them space, make way for cyclists / etc. etc. etc. - none of which has anything to do with speed limits, all of which is driver training - the alternative is you put in a blanket 20mph, do no training and the motorist feels justified to be driving at 20 when 10-15 might be safer and an accident takes place - who is responsible? your organisation for pushing for 20mph limits instead of dealing with the real issue?
rodk wrote:Neither does 20's Plenty for Us advocate "blanket" 20mph limits. We call for a default 20mph limit without heavy calming and with exceptions decided by the local traffic authority that takes into account the needs of all road users. That is in line with DfT guidance which recognises that even on main roads the needs of vulnerable road users should be balanced against any change in journey time. And I am sure that you are as aware as anyone that journey times are not primarily determined by "how fast you go" but more by "how long you are stopped" (ie congestion, lights, crossings, etc).
That is so flawed it is difficult to know where to begin
- you don't advocate blanket limits, but do advocate a default 20mph limit! mmm, lets see in reality what does that mean - that you can pretend that you are on the side of the motorist while taking every opportunity to prove the opposite?
- if you / the DfT wish to take into account the needs of all motorists then you would advocate a 30 mph limit and encourage drivers (through training) to know how to use it - i.e. learn when to use it / when not - that way you would meet everyone's needs...
- vulnerable road users are not affected by a 30mph limit - you could put in a 200mph limit and it would have diddly squat affect on vulnerable road users, a limit is just that, available when safe to use - if there is a vulnerable road user (cyclist / child / elderly person) then it is not safe to use that limit, so the limit is irrelevant, it is still the driver's responsibility to drive appropriately, so even in a 200mph limit with a cyclist in front the driver should be cautious, give them space, etc. - around here we have lots of NSL roads with horses on, do you really think that drivers automatically drive at 60mph because legally that is the limit - of course not, those with a brain simply slow down! Your philosophy would change the whole country's limits to 20mph and bring it to a standstill - it is a blatant misunderstanding of how our roads were designed to work...
- how long you are stopped for has little relevance to limits
rodk wrote:I do not dispute the skills of those on this forum either as drivers or as instructors. But that is not what is being questioned. We live in a democracy which, like most other democracies, sets speed limits according to the needs of communities and society at large rather than the skills of individual drivers.
If our democracy did, then we would be happy - it doesn't because of interfering pressure groups with a very skewed vision of reality, not logic base to their arguments... and a political system keener to be seen to do something than to do it properly...
Yes, your arguments are clever because they allow politicians to feel that they are doing the right thing - it is simply a shame that they are not accurate...
you are yet to put forward one example of how a speed limit stops an accident where driver training would not / where a 20mph limit v. a 30mph limit both driven correctly is any safer / where a 20mph limit is dealing with the root cause not just the symptoms...
if you can start to put forward a case for any of those, or all, then it would be interesting to listen...
Alasdair
