Variable speed limits on the M25

It's like looking in a mirror.

 

As an added bonus, Jamie Redknapp has been banned for 6 months for going over the variable speed limit of 60mph on the M25. They do work!

 

Lots of people arguing an opinion but as Legs has posted these are the facts. The data is published annually by the DoT, and it comes from the UK police (from incidents they attend). The police might be partial to making the odd error but in this I think they can be considered a suitable authority. The police don't attend every accident, but they do usually attend the important ones.

If the UK police say speed is the major contributing factor in about 10% of accidents they attended I tend to believe them.

 

Who said it was? It's a straw man. There is not one single person in this threat who has said speed causes all/most accidents.

What people have said is that speed kills. 20 accidents at 10mph with no fatalities are far preferable to 1 accident at 70mph which kills, possibly with multiple fatalities.

Per the DOT:

20 MPH: 5%
30 MPH: 45%
40 MPH: 85%

Attempts to imply speed isn't dangerous are disingenuous. Lack of attention and human error cause accidents, but higher speeds cause fatalities.

 

Err GF?


You are both correct, but what you really have is a stat within a stat

Speed is the major contributing factor in c10% of collisions

Within that 10%, there are more fatalities the higher the speed and fewer fatalities the lower the speed

 

Ok then smarty pants ... just tell me just how many accidents have been caused by stationary vehicles?

 

Quite a few I'd imagine judging by some of the parking at the top of my road

 

You might as well claim a handbrake lever causes all accidents, as there is one present in every car in every incident

It's being silly

The police look at each incident, take photographs and measurements if necessary, in the event of a serious injury or death deploy specialist accident investigators... but of course you know better then them

 

Speed is just as relevant in situations where it didn't cause the accident. Make a mistake at 10mph = bruises. Make a mistake at 70mph = death. There is a bloody good reason we have lower speed limits in residential areas than we do on motorways.

If the point you appear to be making was true, driving at 70mph through a school district would be perfectly reasonable. After all, if the speed of the car isn't causing the accident where's the harm?

 

I'd give up if I were you Arakel. Apparently speeding is not a big issue as it only directly causes 10% of accidents and kills over 450 people, including children, a year.

Fining people for speeding and risking other people's lives is only revenue raising anyway.

 

If this sentence made any sense whatsoever I might agree with you but it doesn't.

How can speed be relevant to an accident in a situation where the UK police, after in depth investigation, say speed is not a major contributing factor?!

Are you saying the UK police are completely wrong?

Are you saying you know better than the professional accident investigators the UK Police employ?

 

No one said speeding isn't dangerous. If no one sped we'd have 80,000 fewer RTAs in the UK each year.

However, if people took a little more time to look and be aware of what is around them (like cyclists, pedestrians...) instead of playing with their MP3 player, chatting on the phone, drinking coffee....we'd have 240,000 fewer RTAs in the UK each year.

If you want to reduce RTAs it's clear which dangerous behaviours should be eradicated as a priority.

 

He should have taken a leaf out of his dad's book and suggested that the dog was driving.

 

Apparently Arakels FBI stats must be trusted if it is about terrorism, but the British police can't be trusted to provide traffic stats.

;D

 

I've not once argued that speed is the primary cause of RTAs. It is a major factor in outcomes though.

Why do you feel that there is a need to prioritise? It implies that the police and authorities can only do one thing at once or that people cannot stop driving badly AND stop speeding.

It's obvious from many road users, and the comments on here, that speeding is not considered serious and that ignoring speed limits because you think they are wrong is not a biggie. That doing 40mph in an urban area so that you can get to where you are going a matter of seconds quicker is a risk worth taking. That speed cameras are just there to make money even though they have been proven to cut road deaths.

All dangerous or careless drivers should be prosecuted. To argue that speeding is less of a priority because it was not the primary cause of most accidents is totally spurious.

 

Some people are absolutely nuts on this topic. I'm struggling to believe it's even a debate. For the record, I'm not a slow driver, in fact, I need to moderate my speed more than I do. Doesn't mean I can't acknowledge the when I break the speed limit its a bad thing to be doing.

 

It makes total sense, if you drive 40 in a 30 limit, glance at your phone and hit someone they have a much higher chance if dying. Driver negligence (looking at phone ) is the primary causing factor, it's the fact the speed was higher that affects the outcome of the injury. Limits have changed to 20 in certain areas because the chance of serious injury is dramatically reduced at that speed compared to even 30.

Another factor is deceleration, doing 35 and someone steps out with their face in their phone? You react, but can't decelerate past 15 mph whereas if you're doing 30, you can manage to get almost to stopping. That difference can make the difference between a bruise and a serious injury.

You're correct in that speed isn't the main cause, but speed is the determining factor in resulting injury.

 

Go back and change reduce rta's to reduce serious injury from rta's.

 

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you. What we're suggesting is that the limits need revising because they're based on date from the 60s.

Urban streets have far more traffic, parked cars more people wandering about, the limit should now be dropped as there's less visibility on approaching danger.
Cars are safer , stop and start quicker and therefore motorways & dual carriageways where safe could easily cope with higher speeds.

Just observe everyone's driving for a couple of weeks. My trip to work consists of residential roads a main suburban thoroughfare and then a busy shopping centre street. I do well to get above 20 in the residential area due to parked cars, Most people are doing 40 and you get chased if you aren't on the main thoroughfare and then it's back to 20 in the shopping area. People are pretty much driving at the limits I've suggested. Every time I'm on the motorway I see people zooming past doing 80-90. If you;re in the outside lane you cause congestion if you're not doing that.

You get problems when people start doing 30 -40 in the heavily populated shopping and residential areas. I've seen 3 accidents in the last 5 years all at legal speed but where I consider the limit should be 20.

 

Its amazing the amount of posters arguing against pure physics

mentalists

 

Its amazing how you don't like being mature and having a decent debate about a current topic

 

The thing is they're not. No one is arguing that an accident at 40mph is not goign to have worse consequences than 20mph.

What they're suggesting and backing up with facts is that the actual cause of the accident is less likely to be speed than other factors. Because speed is an easy factor to quantify and raise revenue against it's the one the authorities tackle. But some argue that efforts should also be concentrated elsewhere.

What they're also suggesting is that circumstances have changed since the speed limits were set and they are probably due for revision.

There's two groups here arguing different things because each can't articulate or understand each other.

 

I initially said speed kills

it does , you cant argue it , i have never said anywhere that other causes are not relevant in road casualties , others seem to have carried it on to a different conversation

 

Behave yourself

 

I really don't get this. Either speed cameras raise revenue which means that money is available to pay for efforts to "be concentrated elsewhere". Or they stop people speeding which is surely a cheap way of preventing deaths.

Can some one please explain to me how stopping people speeding, or fining people if they do speed, prevents the police and authorities from dealing with other road infringements?

 

When I was stopped for doing 34mph there was a guy on the radar gun, one stopping me, 2 manned police cars and a small army of others writing the tickets.

 

:sign15:

 

But the if the purpose is revenue raising then the money raised pays for the services you described plus others. If the purpose is to slow down drivers in a known blackspot then this is a good thing, no?

If people don't speed they won't be fined and 450+ people might be alive at the end of the year as well.

 

I reckon actually some people DO imply this, whether they mean to or not.

I often hear phrases like "It's safe to drive at 35/40mph in a 30pmh zone" or "20mph limits are ridiculous" This just implies that either people are naive or stupid enough to think they know better (hello twitter users?) - or worse that they just don't care. Some folk just don't make the connection between speed causing more damage and the speed they drive. It'll never happen to them as they are better drivers of course. "But, but, but officer but it wan't my fault, he just stepped out into the road".

Slow the **** down people and consider how you'd feel if you killed someone, or how your family would feel if you died or got sent to prison.

 

I haven't read this entire thread, but while I'd support a blanket 20 mph limit in residential streets, I do think that on the open road people are distracted by looking for speed cameras rather than watching road conditions - and sudden braking when they see a camera can cause accidents.

 

My particular blackspot, (where half of Middlesex's finest were out), is now deemed so dangerous that trees overhang the 30mph speed signs. It does make you wonder where the revenue is being spent.

 

One thing that speed hasn't killed is this thread. Can't believe the argument is still going on.

 

My understanding was that in an attempt to prevent abuse of the system the revenue raised couldn't be recycled into the police and it went to the council. This may have changed now, but it shows that it was/is only a preventative penalty and not effectively used to improve the situation other than this.

 

It's morphed into a different subject. According to the third universal law of forums, we'll be on to Nazis next.