MP and campaigners in speed limit victory (From Echo)

Are there lots of children playing in that road ? If yes its a good idea, but who is going to monitor it ?

It's not speed itself that is the problem. It's the idiots who don't pay proper attention to the road when they drive!

richcarol wrote:
Are there lots of children playing in that road ? If yes its a good idea, but who is going to monitor it ?

They could use a money box. Known to you and I as a speed camera.

This seems like a silly decision.

Perhaps Hardings Elm Road would be better at 30, though I think 40 is perfectly safe.

Howver making the A129 London Road 30 from Crays Hill to Barleylands is absolutely crazy! No development along it except for the farm shop. Seems stupid to me and I doubt the police will enforce it. Just more signs to blight our roads.

Its' about time dashcams were compulsorily built into motor vehicles and required to deliver the last few hours of HD video on demand, overlaid with time and speed data. Rather than speed cameras, we could embed devices at junctions which request the last few minutes' data (without video) from passing vehicles and alert local police (who can replay the video) if the data indicates speed limits have been broken up to that point.

It could be a whole new battleground, with unsightly yellow speed cameras and their attendant signs being removed and instead shadowy figures digging up the roads at night to bury Intelligent Enforcement Devices. That reminds me of something...

it's been placed in order to stop caravans turning over at high speed

little ray of sunshine wrote:
It's not speed itself that is the problem. It's the idiots who don't pay proper attention to the road when they drive!

Speed kills fact, or do you believe that you have just as much chance of living or being less seriously injured at 40mph as 30mph if hit by a car or lorry?
Point taken as to whether this limit will be monitored to enforce the 30mph. From what I see drivers seldom drive below 30mph past schools with 20mph limit, as is shown time and time again when a school does a monitoring.

Maybe the speed along London Road from Sadlers to Tarpots could be dropped from 40 to 30. What do you mean, it already has? I think I am the only driver who takes any notice, most still use it as a race track.

bob7 wrote:
Maybe the speed along London Road from Sadlers to Tarpots could be dropped from 40 to 30. What do you mean, it already has? I think I am the only driver who takes any notice, most still use it as a race track.

Exactly the point I was making above.
No monitoring, no speed traps, so no change, except for drivers like you who have to endure the flashing lights and the swivel finger for actually observing the speed limit.

bob7 wrote:
Maybe the speed along London Road from Sadlers to Tarpots could be dropped from 40 to 30. What do you mean, it already has? I think I am the only driver who takes any notice, most still use it as a race track.

I think tolerance is one of the basic mistakes being made in this country. Apart from say, one or two mph over the limit for a few seconds when the driver might have had to pay more attention to something more pressing, speed limits should be enforced as they are stated. This idea of, for instance, putting a 70 mph speed limit on our motorways and then taking no notice of drivers who do, say 80 mph (senior police officers have said this.) If the limit is 70, then the speed should not exceed 70 mph for more than, say 10 mph for a couple of hundred yards a mile. Anything over this then a fine and 3 points per 10 mph excess. Speeding would die out within a month. Come on, "Make It So!"

Apparently it is quite common for those who campaign for a lower limit to actually get caught out by it. I personally think that's fantastic.

Last Poster: I have never met anyone who would say that in real life. Where do you people come from? You're in a very vocal but tiny minority.

pendulum wrote:
Apparently it is quite common for those who campaign for a lower limit to actually get caught out by it. I personally think that's fantastic.

Last Poster: I have never met anyone who would say that in real life. Where do you people come from? You're in a very vocal but tiny minority.

Do you mean "Make it so?" What would Jean Luke think if he saw your comment?

Some years ago I took part in an experiment, driving from Thurrock to the South Mims services, at various times of the day at various average speeds. The difference between 65 mph and 75 mph averages would probably surprise you. And I would add that you have often heard that in "Real life" but chose not to listen. Either way, it is the racing between speed cameras that has led to the average speed camera and now, no matter what your leaning, we are all to drive in the manner I describe. One more thing. Have you noticed how people, when exiting the 50 mph westbound on the A127, continue to drive at around 60 mph instead of the 900 mph they used to?

HOW is it, that accidents ONLY occur when vehicles are used on the roads, while when there are NO vehicles, NO crashes occur???????????????
???

John T Pharro wrote:

little ray of sunshine wrote: It's not speed itself that is the problem. It's the idiots who don't pay proper attention to the road when they drive!

Speed kills fact, or do you believe that you have just as much chance of living or being less seriously injured at 40mph as 30mph if hit by a car or lorry? Point taken as to whether this limit will be monitored to enforce the 30mph. From what I see drivers seldom drive below 30mph past schools with 20mph limit, as is shown time and time again when a school does a monitoring.

Speed doesn't kill........ inappropriate speed does though.

How many fatalities have there been in F1 in the last 20-30 years? 1 or 2 maybe? These guys are travelling inexcess of 200MPH so that's pretty fast.

Drag racers also hit silly speeds but not aware of scores of them dying as a result.

OK, I've used extremes here but my point is...... Obviously the faster you go, the worse the consequences are likely to be if you run out of talent.

In the scenario where you have an empty 3 lane motorway, it's 2am but the road's dry, the visibility is good and there's not another car on the road, 100MPH is "speeding" but the chances of that speed causing an accident is minimal.

However, someone doing 20MPH in a 30 limit outside a school at home time isn't speeding but I would consider inappropriate.

OK, there will be some instances where roads/layouts have changed and the speed limit needs adjusting to cater for the changes but I think "speeding" is only a small part of the problems on our roads.

The standard of driving I see everyday gets worse, people turning right from a left hand lane on a roundabout (when it's clearly marked that lane is left turn only), tailgating, incorrect signalling....... I could go on and on but I won't.

The problem is driver training (or lack of) cutting speed limits and/or installing $cameras is only addressing a small part of the problem.

Russ13 - TOTALLY Agree. John T Pharo is right saying that 'speed kills fact(s)' though. It does kill facts.

In the hysterical do gooder it tends to replace facts with hype and maudlin emotionalism.

Speed in of itself is not dangerous its the sudden decelleration thats the problem.

Even if we accept the hysterics much quoted utter LIE that one third of all accidents are only due to speed (utter billhooks as numerous TRL studies have proven - actually only about three percent) ok one third. Why on earth would you spend 99.999% of your effort on reducing only this magical one third? Why ignore the two thirds?

Nonsense isn't it.

Thats the kind of knee jerk utter rubbish you get when the hysterical idiots are in charge.

And remember we are spending 99.9999% of the money and effort to remedy in reality about three percent of the problem. Daft isn't it.

We should just accept that given the level of movement of people and vehicles you will always get a certain level of deaths. Probably around two thousand out of how many 'sorties'? As a percentage rate thats great. We have the safest roads in Europe. Why tinker with success? Is it the need to be seen to be doing something? Thats not a good reason.

FACT the safest roads in the UK are in fact the motorways which also happen to be the fastest roads in the UK. How can that be then? Explain.

Over to you panicky do gooders.

EthanEdwards wrote:
Russ13 - TOTALLY Agree. John T Pharo is right saying that 'speed kills fact(s)' though. It does kill facts.

In the hysterical do gooder it tends to replace facts with hype and maudlin emotionalism.

Speed in of itself is not dangerous its the sudden decelleration thats the problem.

Even if we accept the hysterics much quoted utter LIE that one third of all accidents are only due to speed (utter billhooks as numerous TRL studies have proven - actually only about three percent) ok one third. Why on earth would you spend 99.999% of your effort on reducing only this magical one third? Why ignore the two thirds?

Nonsense isn't it.

Thats the kind of knee jerk utter rubbish you get when the hysterical idiots are in charge.

And remember we are spending 99.9999% of the money and effort to remedy in reality about three percent of the problem. Daft isn't it.

We should just accept that given the level of movement of people and vehicles you will always get a certain level of deaths. Probably around two thousand out of how many 'sorties'? As a percentage rate thats great. We have the safest roads in Europe. Why tinker with success? Is it the need to be seen to be doing something? Thats not a good reason.

FACT the safest roads in the UK are in fact the motorways which also happen to be the fastest roads in the UK. How can that be then? Explain.

Over to you panicky do gooders.

Because on motorways the vehicles are all going in the same direction whereas 2 cars colliding driving at 40mph is an 80mph crash, there are no pedestrians and crash barriers.
Nearly all the accidents on motorways are caused by driving too fast either for the conditions or exceeding the speed limit.
Plus look at how many fatal accidents occur on the hard shoulder.
I don't panic just despair that drivers like yourself just will not except speed kills.
Cue all the bad drivers not speed kills brigade!!

Oh I 'except it' alright. It's just utter billhooks as I have proven and you know it. Your repeating a lie. Repeat a lie often enough etc.

Your trite little argument speed kills says nothing about circumstances or direction.

So you either accept your argument is wrong or modify it to a more accurate "innappropriate speed may be a factor in some ksi's".

In any event your getting all hissy about a factor that only accounts for at best THREE PERCENT of KSI's.

So don't care about the other 97% then?

And I have driven in motorways quite in excess of the temporary limit imposed int he 1960's on numerous occasions. As have everybody else if they are honest enough to admit it.

So if 'speed kills' does it? Then I must be dead along witht he population of most of the country.

Facts mean nothing to you John, logic means nothing to you, your argument is a fallacy, based on maudlin sentimentality. Knee jerk reaction propoganda.

You'll be screaming 'will nobody think of the children' next.. I find it deeply sad that an educated adult in this day and age is so uncritical that they blindly accept the most obvious rubbish as gospel and parrot it.
Very sad indeed.

I agree that speed is one of many factors involved in road traffic deaths.

However we have got a bit off topic, do you think that the A129 London Road is suitable for a 30mph limit given the lack of development or pedestrians?

quiksilver100 wrote:
I agree that speed is one of many factors involved in road traffic deaths. However we have got a bit off topic, do you think that the A129 London Road is suitable for a 30mph limit given the lack of development or pedestrians?

Good question - best answered by proper scientific analysis of the location rather than by pressure groups even if well intentioned.
My 2p A129? probably OK as is. The feeder road mentioned in the article? Yeah 30 probably right.

Imposing blanket limits on vast swathes of the country based on nothing nmore than the latest media bleating is just asinine.
I therefore expect HMG to do it immediately.

EthanEdwards wrote:

quiksilver100 wrote: I agree that speed is one of many factors involved in road traffic deaths. However we have got a bit off topic, do you think that the A129 London Road is suitable for a 30mph limit given the lack of development or pedestrians?

Good question - best answered by proper scientific analysis of the location rather than by pressure groups even if well intentioned. My 2p A129? probably OK as is. The feeder road mentioned in the article? Yeah 30 probably right. Imposing blanket limits on vast swathes of the country based on nothing nmore than the latest media bleating is just asinine. I therefore expect HMG to do it immediately.

Yes I agree. The DfT said that all councils had to review the speed limits on A and B routes by 2011. Considering they did not change the limit after this I would be interested to see what this review said.

I suspect that it concluded that the exisitng limit was appropriate to the area based on sound engineering judgement. This is just giving in to uninformed, subjective opinion.

pendulum wrote:
Apparently it is quite common for those who campaign for a lower limit to actually get caught out by it. I personally think that's fantastic. Last Poster: I have never met anyone who would say that in real life. Where do you people come from? You're in a very vocal but tiny minority.

Was told this story on my Speed Awareness course (36mph in a 30 for those wondering)

A speed limit was reduced through a village to 20mph from 30, when villiagers noticed it had become a 'rat run' when a motorway was jammed. however, locals noticed no one was taking any notice of this, and traffic was continuing to drive at high speed through the village. They petitioned the local police force, who agreed to spend a day there with a mobile camera.

On that day, they caught 150 people breaking the 20mph speed limit. Of those, 120 were villagers, many of whom had been the ones who petitioned for the camera...

EthanEdwards wrote:
And I have driven in motorways quite in excess of the temporary limit imposed int he 1960's on numerous occasions. As have everybody else if they are honest enough to admit it.

So if 'speed kills' does it? Then I must be dead along witht he population of most of the country.

Facts mean nothing to you John, logic means nothing to you, your argument is a fallacy, based on maudlin sentimentality. Knee jerk reaction propoganda.

You'll be screaming 'will nobody think of the children' next.. I find it deeply sad that an educated adult in this day and age is so uncritical that they blindly accept the most obvious rubbish as gospel and parrot it.
Very sad indeed.

Ethan,I am amazed at your use of the selective button, exemplified by your "You are all the same as me" presumption. Why do you think I have been guilty of breaking the law?
 


You have not mentioned the accident reduction on the 50 mph stretch of the A127.

Of course the modification, driving to suit the condition of the road, implies that the motorist is the best judge of which speed is safe in regard to road conditions.

Now, we are all driving in the same direction, we are all Ethan Edwardses and select the speed to best suit those conditions, bearing in mind we all speed when we feel like it, along with all the other pro speeders clap trap. We are on a motorway. It is around 8 am. suddenly, out of nowhere at all in front of us is a mile and a half of twisted, flaming wreckage, from shoulder to shoulder of the road, and there are people actually ablaze, hair and fat dissolving in a fiery mass. That is what we see, it is going to be the very last thing we see as we realize that, at 65 mph we have no chance of stopping before we joined Dante's inferno. Of course we are all experts, we would never drive too fast in FOG would we. Sadly, the people immediately to your rear are also experts like yourself. and are next on this raceway to hell.

This has happened far too often. Now tell all the people who have lost whole families to speed where your theory works.

Remember, speed is only dangerous when used at the wrong time in the wrong place. Remove speed from the fog multi-crashes and they do not happen.

One thing is totally God given. We are human, make mistakes and all too often show off our supposed skills on the road. As a skilled driver you can make skilled judgments maybe, but you are not the bloke in the car to your left who suddenly pulls out to overtake without checking his mirror, nor indeed, his right hand side. You are not in command of the fates on a busy Motorway, why argue otherwise?

Last Poster wrote:

EthanEdwards wrote: And I have driven in motorways quite in excess of the temporary limit imposed int he 1960's on numerous occasions. As have everybody else if they are honest enough to admit it. So if 'speed kills' does it? Then I must be dead along witht he population of most of the country. Facts mean nothing to you John, logic means nothing to you, your argument is a fallacy, based on maudlin sentimentality. Knee jerk reaction propoganda. You'll be screaming 'will nobody think of the children' next.. I find it deeply sad that an educated adult in this day and age is so uncritical that they blindly accept the most obvious rubbish as gospel and parrot it. Very sad indeed.

Ethan,I am amazed at your use of the selective button, exemplified by your "You are all the same as me" presumption. Why do you think I have been guilty of breaking the law?   You have not mentioned the accident reduction on the 50 mph stretch of the A127. Of course the modification, driving to suit the condition of the road, implies that the motorist is the best judge of which speed is safe in regard to road conditions. Now, we are all driving in the same direction, we are all Ethan Edwardses and select the speed to best suit those conditions, bearing in mind we all speed when we feel like it, along with all the other pro speeders clap trap. We are on a motorway. It is around 8 am. suddenly, out of nowhere at all in front of us is a mile and a half of twisted, flaming wreckage, from shoulder to shoulder of the road, and there are people actually ablaze, hair and fat dissolving in a fiery mass. That is what we see, it is going to be the very last thing we see as we realize that, at 65 mph we have no chance of stopping before we joined Dante's inferno. Of course we are all experts, we would never drive too fast in FOG would we. Sadly, the people immediately to your rear are also experts like yourself. and are next on this raceway to hell. This has happened far too often. Now tell all the people who have lost whole families to speed where your theory works. Remember, speed is only dangerous when used at the wrong time in the wrong place. Remove speed from the fog multi-crashes and they do not happen. One thing is totally God given. We are human, make mistakes and all too often show off our supposed skills on the road. As a skilled driver you can make skilled judgments maybe, but you are not the bloke in the car to your left who suddenly pulls out to overtake without checking his mirror, nor indeed, his right hand side. You are not in command of the fates on a busy Motorway, why argue otherwise?

Where does it end though, once 70mph was safe, then 50mph later its dropped to 40mph.

Instead of constantly looking to slow people down shouldn't the aim be to look to speed up safely.

Otherwise we will end up back at the horse and cart.

The A127 scheme you quote is more down to the regulation of steady speed, meaning you do not get one person doing 70mph and one doing 90mph. As there has equally been a huge reduction in the area that is 70mph covered by the cameras.

Unfortunately we will never know if 70mph limit all the way along with cameras to enforce it would have improved safety whilst maintaining speed, as it was never tried.

Quicksilver 100:

Er, without wishing to raise a spectre from our past, I believe you may be just a shade late with your comment. Do you not recall last year, a certain band of gentlemen unilaterally closing a section of the A127 in order to put their horses and jaunty carts through their paces? Can't quite remember who they were though :)

quiksilver100 wrote:

Last Poster wrote:

EthanEdwards wrote: And I have driven in motorways quite in excess of the temporary limit imposed int he 1960's on numerous occasions. As have everybody else if they are honest enough to admit it. So if 'speed kills' does it? Then I must be dead along witht he population of most of the country. Facts mean nothing to you John, logic means nothing to you, your argument is a fallacy, based on maudlin sentimentality. Knee jerk reaction propoganda. You'll be screaming 'will nobody think of the children' next.. I find it deeply sad that an educated adult in this day and age is so uncritical that they blindly accept the most obvious rubbish as gospel and parrot it. Very sad indeed.

Ethan,I am amazed at your use of the selective button, exemplified by your "You are all the same as me" presumption. Why do you think I have been guilty of breaking the law?   You have not mentioned the accident reduction on the 50 mph stretch of the A127. Of course the modification, driving to suit the condition of the road, implies that the motorist is the best judge of which speed is safe in regard to road conditions. Now, we are all driving in the same direction, we are all Ethan Edwardses and select the speed to best suit those conditions, bearing in mind we all speed when we feel like it, along with all the other pro speeders clap trap. We are on a motorway. It is around 8 am. suddenly, out of nowhere at all in front of us is a mile and a half of twisted, flaming wreckage, from shoulder to shoulder of the road, and there are people actually ablaze, hair and fat dissolving in a fiery mass. That is what we see, it is going to be the very last thing we see as we realize that, at 65 mph we have no chance of stopping before we joined Dante's inferno. Of course we are all experts, we would never drive too fast in FOG would we. Sadly, the people immediately to your rear are also experts like yourself. and are next on this raceway to hell. This has happened far too often. Now tell all the people who have lost whole families to speed where your theory works. Remember, speed is only dangerous when used at the wrong time in the wrong place. Remove speed from the fog multi-crashes and they do not happen. One thing is totally God given. We are human, make mistakes and all too often show off our supposed skills on the road. As a skilled driver you can make skilled judgments maybe, but you are not the bloke in the car to your left who suddenly pulls out to overtake without checking his mirror, nor indeed, his right hand side. You are not in command of the fates on a busy Motorway, why argue otherwise?

Where does it end though, once 70mph was safe, then 50mph later its dropped to 40mph.

Instead of constantly looking to slow people down shouldn't the aim be to look to speed up safely.

Otherwise we will end up back at the horse and cart.

The A127 scheme you quote is more down to the regulation of steady speed, meaning you do not get one person doing 70mph and one doing 90mph. As there has equally been a huge reduction in the area that is 70mph covered by the cameras.

Unfortunately we will never know if 70mph limit all the way along with cameras to enforce it would have improved safety whilst maintaining speed, as it was never tried.

I didn't mention the chiildren, but since you did Ethan if you saw the speed some drivers go in the 20mph limit past the school I am a governor at no doubt you would applaud them or subscibe to the view "it only applies when the school is open". That is like your OK to speed when YOU think it is alright.
So tell me Ethan if you think that just when do you think the school opens?

John T Pharro wrote:

quiksilver100 wrote:

Last Poster wrote:

EthanEdwards wrote: And I have driven in motorways quite in excess of the temporary limit imposed int he 1960's on numerous occasions. As have everybody else if they are honest enough to admit it. So if 'speed kills' does it? Then I must be dead along witht he population of most of the country. Facts mean nothing to you John, logic means nothing to you, your argument is a fallacy, based on maudlin sentimentality. Knee jerk reaction propoganda. You'll be screaming 'will nobody think of the children' next.. I find it deeply sad that an educated adult in this day and age is so uncritical that they blindly accept the most obvious rubbish as gospel and parrot it. Very sad indeed.

Ethan,I am amazed at your use of the selective button, exemplified by your "You are all the same as me" presumption. Why do you think I have been guilty of breaking the law?   You have not mentioned the accident reduction on the 50 mph stretch of the A127. Of course the modification, driving to suit the condition of the road, implies that the motorist is the best judge of which speed is safe in regard to road conditions. Now, we are all driving in the same direction, we are all Ethan Edwardses and select the speed to best suit those conditions, bearing in mind we all speed when we feel like it, along with all the other pro speeders clap trap. We are on a motorway. It is around 8 am. suddenly, out of nowhere at all in front of us is a mile and a half of twisted, flaming wreckage, from shoulder to shoulder of the road, and there are people actually ablaze, hair and fat dissolving in a fiery mass. That is what we see, it is going to be the very last thing we see as we realize that, at 65 mph we have no chance of stopping before we joined Dante's inferno. Of course we are all experts, we would never drive too fast in FOG would we. Sadly, the people immediately to your rear are also experts like yourself. and are next on this raceway to hell. This has happened far too often. Now tell all the people who have lost whole families to speed where your theory works. Remember, speed is only dangerous when used at the wrong time in the wrong place. Remove speed from the fog multi-crashes and they do not happen. One thing is totally God given. We are human, make mistakes and all too often show off our supposed skills on the road. As a skilled driver you can make skilled judgments maybe, but you are not the bloke in the car to your left who suddenly pulls out to overtake without checking his mirror, nor indeed, his right hand side. You are not in command of the fates on a busy Motorway, why argue otherwise?

Where does it end though, once 70mph was safe, then 50mph later its dropped to 40mph. Instead of constantly looking to slow people down shouldn't the aim be to look to speed up safely. Otherwise we will end up back at the horse and cart. The A127 scheme you quote is more down to the regulation of steady speed, meaning you do not get one person doing 70mph and one doing 90mph. As there has equally been a huge reduction in the area that is 70mph covered by the cameras. Unfortunately we will never know if 70mph limit all the way along with cameras to enforce it would have improved safety whilst maintaining speed, as it was never tried.

I didn't mention the chiildren, but since you did Ethan if you saw the speed some drivers go in the 20mph limit past the school I am a governor at no doubt you would applaud them or subscibe to the view "it only applies when the school is open". That is like your OK to speed when YOU think it is alright. So tell me Ethan if you think that just when do you think the school opens?

Yes thats a driver exercising judgement. I'm all in favour of a driver exercising judgement. You are NOT? Would you have them all driving rouind ignoring their surroundings instead?

Propaganda swallowed whole.
Since you have access to educational materials may I suggest you research the meaning of the word innappropriate then.

So when is the St Mary's school of immaculate conception (Reformed) in Worksop, Thrixby road open? You tell
me.
If you really have nothing better to support your contentions than a stupid BS question, then you really have zero arguments.

EthanEdwards wrote:

John T Pharro wrote:

quiksilver100 wrote:

Last Poster wrote:

EthanEdwards wrote: And I have driven in motorways quite in excess of the temporary limit imposed int he 1960's on numerous occasions. As have everybody else if they are honest enough to admit it. So if 'speed kills' does it? Then I must be dead along witht he population of most of the country. Facts mean nothing to you John, logic means nothing to you, your argument is a fallacy, based on maudlin sentimentality. Knee jerk reaction propoganda. You'll be screaming 'will nobody think of the children' next.. I find it deeply sad that an educated adult in this day and age is so uncritical that they blindly accept the most obvious rubbish as gospel and parrot it. Very sad indeed.

Ethan,I am amazed at your use of the selective button, exemplified by your "You are all the same as me" presumption. Why do you think I have been guilty of breaking the law?   You have not mentioned the accident reduction on the 50 mph stretch of the A127. Of course the modification, driving to suit the condition of the road, implies that the motorist is the best judge of which speed is safe in regard to road conditions. Now, we are all driving in the same direction, we are all Ethan Edwardses and select the speed to best suit those conditions, bearing in mind we all speed when we feel like it, along with all the other pro speeders clap trap. We are on a motorway. It is around 8 am. suddenly, out of nowhere at all in front of us is a mile and a half of twisted, flaming wreckage, from shoulder to shoulder of the road, and there are people actually ablaze, hair and fat dissolving in a fiery mass. That is what we see, it is going to be the very last thing we see as we realize that, at 65 mph we have no chance of stopping before we joined Dante's inferno. Of course we are all experts, we would never drive too fast in FOG would we. Sadly, the people immediately to your rear are also experts like yourself. and are next on this raceway to hell. This has happened far too often. Now tell all the people who have lost whole families to speed where your theory works. Remember, speed is only dangerous when used at the wrong time in the wrong place. Remove speed from the fog multi-crashes and they do not happen. One thing is totally God given. We are human, make mistakes and all too often show off our supposed skills on the road. As a skilled driver you can make skilled judgments maybe, but you are not the bloke in the car to your left who suddenly pulls out to overtake without checking his mirror, nor indeed, his right hand side. You are not in command of the fates on a busy Motorway, why argue otherwise?

Where does it end though, once 70mph was safe, then 50mph later its dropped to 40mph. Instead of constantly looking to slow people down shouldn't the aim be to look to speed up safely. Otherwise we will end up back at the horse and cart. The A127 scheme you quote is more down to the regulation of steady speed, meaning you do not get one person doing 70mph and one doing 90mph. As there has equally been a huge reduction in the area that is 70mph covered by the cameras. Unfortunately we will never know if 70mph limit all the way along with cameras to enforce it would have improved safety whilst maintaining speed, as it was never tried.

I didn't mention the chiildren, but since you did Ethan if you saw the speed some drivers go in the 20mph limit past the school I am a governor at no doubt you would applaud them or subscibe to the view "it only applies when the school is open". That is like your OK to speed when YOU think it is alright. So tell me Ethan if you think that just when do you think the school opens?

Yes thats a driver exercising judgement. I'm all in favour of a driver exercising judgement. You are NOT? Would you have them all driving rouind ignoring their surroundings instead?

Propaganda swallowed whole.
Since you have access to educational materials may I suggest you research the meaning of the word innappropriate then.

So when is the St Mary's school of immaculate conception (Reformed) in Worksop, Thrixby road open? You tell
me.
If you really have nothing better to support your contentions than a stupid BS question, then you really have zero arguments.

So you know do you when you are "appropriately" speeding that a child isn't going to run out in front of you and you will be able to stop just as quickly if you were driviing within the speed limit?
You obviously think you are a far better driver than you really are. Unfortunately it most probably wont be you hurt, if by chance your breaking the speed limit is the cause or compounds any accident you may have.
I am sure you will tell the Courts your speed was appropiate. Like hell you will, you just deny you were speeding wouldn't you?
You probably think there are appropiate times to use a mobile phone when driving as well.

Otherwise we will end up back at the horse and cart.

which is precisely when the speed cameras will be reset to trigger at speeds of over 5 M.P.H.

John T Pharro wrote:

little ray of sunshine wrote:
It's not speed itself that is the problem. It's the idiots who don't pay proper attention to the road when they drive!

Speed kills fact, or do you believe that you have just as much chance of living or being less seriously injured at 40mph as 30mph if hit by a car or lorry?
Point taken as to whether this limit will be monitored to enforce the 30mph. From what I see drivers seldom drive below 30mph past schools with 20mph limit, as is shown time and time again when a school does a monitoring.

Oh poor love you missed my point didnt you.

SPEED never killed anyone. IDIOTS SPEEDING does. People losing control of vehicles because they are not paying attention to the road or otherwise distracted happens at ANY SPEED. Because they are idiots. Whether its fatal or not is besides the point, speed does not kill, people do, because people are the ones who speed and do not pay due care and attention.

Have you ever been on an aeroplane and suddenly died when the pilot hit 200mph? No? Me neither. Or when a car suddenly touches 71mph you suddenly expire? No?

If that 71mph (or any speed you like) car were to collide with something say if the distracted driver veered to other side of the carriageway then yes i would forgive you for dying.

And you miss the point. You seriously think you don't need a speed limit anywhere. There are speed limits to prevent as many accidents as possible.
It is idiots like you that speed that cause more accidents that there should be.
The speed limits are there because that is the MAXIMUM appropriate speed for the road. You seriously think you are a better judge to say what the speed should be.
Well one thing if you actually drive the way you say you do ignore speed limits will not be long till you loose your licence, hopefully before any accidents.

John T Pharro wrote:
And you miss the point. You seriously think you don't need a speed limit anywhere. There are speed limits to prevent as many accidents as possible.
It is idiots like you that speed that cause more accidents that there should be.
The speed limits are there because that is the MAXIMUM appropriate speed for the road. You seriously think you are a better judge to say what the speed should be.
Well one thing if you actually drive the way you say you do ignore speed limits will not be long till you loose your licence, hopefully before any accidents.

When did i say i ignored speed limits? Not once. When did i say i seriously think we dont need speed limits? Not once. When did i say im the best person to judge what speed limits should be? AGAIN not once.

There is no danger of me losing my license, i have never had an accident, nor one single point on my license. I dont even own a car anymore LOL. So 'idiots like me'? Im confused now.

Over to you to invent some more facts about me that you havent got a clue about........

little ray of sunshine wrote:

John T Pharro wrote:
And you miss the point. You seriously think you don't need a speed limit anywhere. There are speed limits to prevent as many accidents as possible.
It is idiots like you that speed that cause more accidents that there should be.
The speed limits are there because that is the MAXIMUM appropriate speed for the road. You seriously think you are a better judge to say what the speed should be.
Well one thing if you actually drive the way you say you do ignore speed limits will not be long till you loose your licence, hopefully before any accidents.

When did i say i ignored speed limits? Not once. When did i say i seriously think we dont need speed limits? Not once. When did i say im the best person to judge what speed limits should be? AGAIN not once.

There is no danger of me losing my license, i have never had an accident, nor one single point on my license. I dont even own a car anymore LOL. So 'idiots like me'? Im confused now.

Over to you to invent some more facts about me that you havent got a clue about........

Apologies thought I was responding to EthanEdwards. OK?

John T Pharro wrote:
And you miss the point. You seriously think you don't need a speed limit anywhere. There are speed limits to prevent as many accidents as possible.
It is idiots like you that speed that cause more accidents that there should be.
The speed limits are there because that is the MAXIMUM appropriate speed for the road. You seriously think you are a better judge to say what the speed should be.
Well one thing if you actually drive the way you say you do ignore speed limits will not be long till you loose your licence, hopefully before any accidents.

Rules dear boy are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.

I too have a clean licence but for 30 plus years and I do 25,000 miles a year. Your credentials the same?

Thought not.

You have no arguments and are resorting to ad hominem.

little ray of sunshine wrote:
It's not speed itself that is the problem. It's the idiots who don't pay proper attention to the road when they drive!

There are good reasons why all roads in the wider area around residential areas, near schools, and towns being limited to 20 mph. It is based on science.
Children up to 15 years old cannot safely judge vehicle speed. Partial Abstract - Reduced Sensitivity - Wann et al. 2011
….Road traffic statistics confirm that children up to 15 years old are over-represented in pedestrian casualties. We demonstrate that, for a given pedestrian crossing time, vehicles traveling faster loom less than slower vehicles, which creates a dangerous illusion in which faster vehicles may be perceived as not approaching. Our results from perceptual tests of looming thresholds show strong developmental trends in sensitivity, such that children may not be able to detect vehicles approaching at speeds in excess of 20 mph. This creates a risk of injudicious road crossing in urban settings when traffic speeds are higher than 20 mph. The risk is exacerbated because vehicles moving faster than this speed are more likely to result in pedestrian fatalities.
Psychological Science published online 9 March 2011 DOI: 10.1177/095679761140
0917
http://pss.sagepub.c
om/content/22/4/429.
full
There are many other reasons too. Also supported by science.

EthanEdwards wrote:

John T Pharro wrote:
And you miss the point. You seriously think you don't need a speed limit anywhere. There are speed limits to prevent as many accidents as possible.
It is idiots like you that speed that cause more accidents that there should be.
The speed limits are there because that is the MAXIMUM appropriate speed for the road. You seriously think you are a better judge to say what the speed should be.
Well one thing if you actually drive the way you say you do ignore speed limits will not be long till you loose your licence, hopefully before any accidents.

Rules dear boy are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.

I too have a clean licence but for 30 plus years and I do 25,000 miles a year. Your credentials the same?

Thought not.

You have no arguments and are resorting to ad hominem.

I have held a clean licence since 1980. Also have Class 1 (now Cat C+E), Class 2 (now Cat C), PCV, plus forklift licence for reach, counterbalance B3, and J2 rough terrain, plus I've taken the RoSPA advanced test and passed. I have been a professional driver for much of the past thirty-one years.

In my opinion you are a dangerous fool whose luck will run out one day, when that happens it is very likely someone will die, either you or an innocent victim.
Speed limits are there for a reason, obey them.

Still not got an answer from anyone. Is this a road where children play out in the street ? are there lots of kids playing out ? If yes then I agree with 30 or even 20 mph.

little ray of sunshine wrote:
It's not speed itself that is the problem. It's the idiots who don't pay proper attention to the road when they drive!

Yep, that's true, but when it inevitably does go wrong, their speed will make a difference.
As for the straw-man argument that there are no kids playing in the road - people are ignoring you because it's such a daft question. Get over it and move on!
Regards,
Smiffy22

EthanEdwards wrote:
Russ13 - TOTALLY Agree. John T Pharo is right saying that 'speed kills fact(s)' though. It does kill facts.

In the hysterical do gooder it tends to replace facts with hype and maudlin emotionalism.

Speed in of itself is not dangerous its the sudden decelleration thats the problem.

Even if we accept the hysterics much quoted utter LIE that one third of all accidents are only due to speed (utter billhooks as numerous TRL studies have proven - actually only about three percent) ok one third. Why on earth would you spend 99.999% of your effort on reducing only this magical one third? Why ignore the two thirds?

Nonsense isn't it.

Thats the kind of knee jerk utter rubbish you get when the hysterical idiots are in charge.

And remember we are spending 99.9999% of the money and effort to remedy in reality about three percent of the problem. Daft isn't it.

We should just accept that given the level of movement of people and vehicles you will always get a certain level of deaths. Probably around two thousand out of how many 'sorties'? As a percentage rate thats great. We have the safest roads in Europe. Why tinker with success? Is it the need to be seen to be doing something? Thats not a good reason.

FACT the safest roads in the UK are in fact the motorways which also happen to be the fastest roads in the UK. How can that be then? Explain.

Over to you panicky do gooders.

Methinks you've been studying at the Clarkson school of motoring facts and fantasies!
Two and a half thousand deaths a year, and countless hundreds of thousands of injuries. Well, you may think that's an acceptable level of carnage, but I would hope you are in a minority.
60 years ago, when cars and their brakes/tyres etc were far less reliable and rarely tested, and medical emergency services were comparatively primitive , it might be understandable (but not excusable) that there were so many crashes and so many deaths. But with the advances we have made in these areas we should see just a handful of deaths per year. Nil would be good, but we need to be realistic.
The fact is that the speed limits need to be at a level so that the vast majority of people will not be a risk to themselves and to others. You may be an ace driver who should have much higher speed limits, but we can't legislate just for you. And in any case, you are forgetting the unexpected events that occur on roads, over which you have no control despite your superb driving ability.
When all's said and done though, why is it such a an imposition to to have a lower limit. it won't make a hill-of-beans worth of difference to the average journey time across town. Do the maths. Then do an experiment, you'll be surprised how little difference your maximum speed makes. Except you'll spend longer at the next queue on busy roads of course.
Ok, time to kick away my soap box.
Here's hoping for a fewer distraught families next year (and maybe fewer hold-ups due to crashes...)
Regards,
Smiffy22

PJR-121 wrote:

pendulum wrote:
Apparently it is quite common for those who campaign for a lower limit to actually get caught out by it. I personally think that's fantastic. Last Poster: I have never met anyone who would say that in real life. Where do you people come from? You're in a very vocal but tiny minority.

Was told this story on my Speed Awareness course (36mph in a 30 for those wondering)

A speed limit was reduced through a village to 20mph from 30, when villiagers noticed it had become a 'rat run' when a motorway was jammed. however, locals noticed no one was taking any notice of this, and traffic was continuing to drive at high speed through the village. They petitioned the local police force, who agreed to spend a day there with a mobile camera.

On that day, they caught 150 people breaking the 20mph speed limit. Of those, 120 were villagers, many of whom had been the ones who petitioned for the camera...

I'm not surprised, it's merely an extension of the usual "the lower speed limits are intended for everyone else, because they don't drive as brilliantly as me" attitude.
And of course, the lack of respect people have for the rights of others, remember, the driver is the most important person in the town!
Regards,
Smiffy22

quiksilver100 wrote:

Last Poster wrote:

EthanEdwards wrote: And I have driven in motorways quite in excess of the temporary limit imposed int he 1960's on numerous occasions. As have everybody else if they are honest enough to admit it. So if 'speed kills' does it? Then I must be dead along witht he population of most of the country. Facts mean nothing to you John, logic means nothing to you, your argument is a fallacy, based on maudlin sentimentality. Knee jerk reaction propoganda. You'll be screaming 'will nobody think of the children' next.. I find it deeply sad that an educated adult in this day and age is so uncritical that they blindly accept the most obvious rubbish as gospel and parrot it. Very sad indeed.

Ethan,I am amazed at your use of the selective button, exemplified by your "You are all the same as me" presumption. Why do you think I have been guilty of breaking the law?   You have not mentioned the accident reduction on the 50 mph stretch of the A127. Of course the modification, driving to suit the condition of the road, implies that the motorist is the best judge of which speed is safe in regard to road conditions. Now, we are all driving in the same direction, we are all Ethan Edwardses and select the speed to best suit those conditions, bearing in mind we all speed when we feel like it, along with all the other pro speeders clap trap. We are on a motorway. It is around 8 am. suddenly, out of nowhere at all in front of us is a mile and a half of twisted, flaming wreckage, from shoulder to shoulder of the road, and there are people actually ablaze, hair and fat dissolving in a fiery mass. That is what we see, it is going to be the very last thing we see as we realize that, at 65 mph we have no chance of stopping before we joined Dante's inferno. Of course we are all experts, we would never drive too fast in FOG would we. Sadly, the people immediately to your rear are also experts like yourself. and are next on this raceway to hell. This has happened far too often. Now tell all the people who have lost whole families to speed where your theory works. Remember, speed is only dangerous when used at the wrong time in the wrong place. Remove speed from the fog multi-crashes and they do not happen. One thing is totally God given. We are human, make mistakes and all too often show off our supposed skills on the road. As a skilled driver you can make skilled judgments maybe, but you are not the bloke in the car to your left who suddenly pulls out to overtake without checking his mirror, nor indeed, his right hand side. You are not in command of the fates on a busy Motorway, why argue otherwise?

Where does it end though, once 70mph was safe, then 50mph later its dropped to 40mph.

Instead of constantly looking to slow people down shouldn't the aim be to look to speed up safely.

Otherwise we will end up back at the horse and cart.

The A127 scheme you quote is more down to the regulation of steady speed, meaning you do not get one person doing 70mph and one doing 90mph. As there has equally been a huge reduction in the area that is 70mph covered by the cameras.

Unfortunately we will never know if 70mph limit all the way along with cameras to enforce it would have improved safety whilst maintaining speed, as it was never tried.

The A127 is a classic case of a main road that is very wrong for a 70mph limit. Quite bendy in places, and with a huge number of roads joining it. Many of those roads are T-junctions with the A127, and those with slip roads do not have the slip road length of a motorway.
This is why there were so many crashes on that road prior to the 50mph and average cameras. The journey to work used to be a nightmare, at least one major hold-up a week. Once the cameras went on the difference was stunning. A few a year instead of a hold up every week. Most of those crashes didn't even reach the stats if the police were not involved, the only suffering was usually a few thousand commuters trapped for an hour or so in queues. The Saddlers farm work nobbled the journey times for a while, but with that coming to an end things should get back to normal.
Regards,
Smiffy22

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

EthanEdwards wrote:

John T Pharro wrote:
And you miss the point. You seriously think you don't need a speed limit anywhere. There are speed limits to prevent as many accidents as possible.
It is idiots like you that speed that cause more accidents that there should be.
The speed limits are there because that is the MAXIMUM appropriate speed for the road. You seriously think you are a better judge to say what the speed should be.
Well one thing if you actually drive the way you say you do ignore speed limits will not be long till you loose your licence, hopefully before any accidents.

Rules dear boy are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.

I too have a clean licence but for 30 plus years and I do 25,000 miles a year. Your credentials the same?

Thought not.

You have no arguments and are resorting to ad hominem.

I have held a clean licence since 1980. Also have Class 1 (now Cat C+E), Class 2 (now Cat C), PCV, plus forklift licence for reach, counterbalance B3, and J2 rough terrain, plus I've taken the RoSPA advanced test and passed. I have been a professional driver for much of the past thirty-one years.

In my opinion you are a dangerous fool whose luck will run out one day, when that happens it is very likely someone will die, either you or an innocent victim.
Speed limits are there for a reason, obey them.

He doesn't need to - he's got immunity from them on account of his super driving ability!
Oh, and he thinks that only the super-drivers will "know" they are so great and exceed the limit. all the "average" or ropey drivers know they are so and will remain at the limit.
And nothing unexpected ever happens when he is on the road (well, it wouldn't dare!)
Regards,
Smiffy22

Thank you Smiffy for your much repeated opinons. We all know that opinions are worth less than the paper they are written on.

Before your further rants you might want to have read what I ACTUALLY wrote rather than the shrill rubbbish that followed it.

I said that I frequently travel at an apprrpriata speed on motorways that is in excess of the articficially imposed limit.

So in fact do most other motorway users. I'm calling for some honsty from the hypocrites posting here.
It's a certain fact that you can see on Motorways every day of the week. Making utter tosh of the trite little mantra 'speed kills' As to my 'luck' running out may I just say. Tosh! My luck is doing very nicely thank you, I prefer to think of it as proper judgement honed in the THIRTY TWO YEARS of safe driving. So much for luck!

I refer you to the word motorways. Which caused some posters to have some kind of brain seizure and spout about children pedestrians and schools.
Which I don't believe you'll be finding on many motorways but it was quite amusing to let them make fools of themselves. You know who you are.

Now appropriate speed in non motorway locations. This may be the posted limit or more or even much much less. It' depends on you the driver to make a judgement.
Thats what driving is and no you don't have to be a super driver to use your JUDGEMENT. Look it up people as it seems to be a rare commodity.

What scares me is bloody fools like some of the posters here, travelling at the speed limit with TOTAL DISREGARD to the circumstances around them. Try looking out those windows not staring at the speedo clots! Just because some other fool miles away decades ago, has set an arbitrary limit.
If your campaigning for blind obedience and total disregard of conditions then you do NOT have my support. I prefer drivers to drive, not be unguided missile riders.

http://www.safespeed
.org.uk/lie.html

EthanEdwards wrote:
Thank you Smiffy for your much repeated opinons. We all know that opinions are worth less than the paper they are written on.

Before your further rants you might want to have read what I ACTUALLY wrote rather than the shrill rubbbish that followed it.

I said that I frequently travel at an apprrpriata speed on motorways that is in excess of the articficially imposed limit.

So in fact do most other motorway users. I'm calling for some honsty from the hypocrites posting here.
It's a certain fact that you can see on Motorways every day of the week. Making utter tosh of the trite little mantra 'speed kills' As to my 'luck' running out may I just say. Tosh! My luck is doing very nicely thank you, I prefer to think of it as proper judgement honed in the THIRTY TWO YEARS of safe driving. So much for luck!

I refer you to the word motorways. Which caused some posters to have some kind of brain seizure and spout about children pedestrians and schools.
Which I don't believe you'll be finding on many motorways but it was quite amusing to let them make fools of themselves. You know who you are.

Now appropriate speed in non motorway locations. This may be the posted limit or more or even much much less. It' depends on you the driver to make a judgement.
Thats what driving is and no you don't have to be a super driver to use your JUDGEMENT. Look it up people as it seems to be a rare commodity.

What scares me is bloody fools like some of the posters here, travelling at the speed limit with TOTAL DISREGARD to the circumstances around them. Try looking out those windows not staring at the speedo clots! Just because some other fool miles away decades ago, has set an arbitrary limit.
If your campaigning for blind obedience and total disregard of conditions then you do NOT have my support. I prefer drivers to drive, not be unguided missile riders.

I maintain you are a dangerous fool who should be removed from the road ASAP. The law is the law, obey it.

32 years and 300,000 miles plus says your utterly wrong.

But thanks for the Judge Dredd impersonation.

EthanEdwards wrote:
32 years and 300,000 miles plus says your utterly wrong.

But thanks for the Judge Dredd impersonation.

I have held a clean licence since 1980. Also have Class 1 (now Cat C+E), Class 2 (now Cat C), PCV, plus forklift licence for reach, counterbalance B3, and J2 rough terrain, plus I've taken the RoSPA advanced test and passed. I have been a professional driver for much of the past thirty-one years.

In my opinion you are a dangerous fool whose luck will run out one day, when that happens it is very likely someone will die, either you or an innocent victim.
Speed limits are there for a reason, obey them.

More ill informed opinion yawn!

EthanEdwards wrote:
More ill informed opinion yawn!

I see. The opinion of a professional, highly trained and qualified driver is 'ill-informed'.
But your opinion, the opinion of someone who took one test 32 years ago and has gained no other driving qualifications since, is informed?

You're a bigger fool than I thought.

Ill informed and yet again youve just proved so once more by your latest post. Your commenting on the basis of zero known facts and 100% assumption. An alleged advanced driver actually making the case for a driver NOT using his own judgement? Beyond parody sir. Your a fraud.

EthanEdwards wrote:
Ill informed and yet again youve just proved so once more by your latest post. Your commenting on the basis of zero known facts and 100% assumption. An alleged advanced driver actually making the case for a driver NOT using his own judgement? Beyond parody sir. Your a fraud.

No. I'm making the case for a driver driving safely and responsibly by obeying the speed limit and obeying the law.
You are making the case for breaking the law, driving dangerously and putting lives at risk.

It is still my opinion you are a dangerous fool who should not be on the road.

Again opinion and your making up straw man arguments. ... Have you really nothing better than that?

The topic is a reduced speed limit. Therefore the subject is speed.

I suggest you look up straw man argument. You will see I have not made one.

EthanEdwards wrote:
32 years and 300,000 miles plus says your utterly wrong.

But thanks for the Judge Dredd impersonation.

This comment used to be reserved for the fairer sex, but you have now proved that the insurance companies do, in fact, know a little of what they preach:

On that miniscule mileage you claim (300,000) in the few years you have driven, have you ever tried looking in the mirror to see what you have caused during those self ordained "safe miles" of yours?

You chose not to comment on my "Fog" crash (which actually happened) and the many others that have occurred with agonising frequency. Probably because you know that they happened and you know they were the responsibility of every motorist who thought he knew the safe speed in fog!

Tell me please, before you create more fools by telling them that they know best, how do YOU account for the multi pile ups on foggy motorways, if not for the thousands that think they know better than the experts?