The relatively high accident rate on rural roads has brought calls for a new speed limit in country areas of 40mph. That is worth considering. There are many roads where the lack of a limit implicitly allows drivers to travel at 60mph, even where the conditions should dictate otherwise.
Sigh…
No, it is not worth considering. Like all of these blanket “punish everyone for the transgressions of the few” trotted out by the weak of mind and hard of thinking it should be rejected out of hand. Unfortunately, we are plagued by the weak of mind and hard of thinking – and some of them write leaders for national newspapers, others are sitting on the green benches listening to their drivel and passing piss-poor legislation when they would be better employed under the table of the HoC bar.
A safe speed is not the same thing as a posted speed. It may be higher or it may be lower and it depends upon the conditions, the state of the driver and that of the vehicle. This is basic driver/rider training. If the individual is too stupid to regulate their speed for the conditions, having a lower speed limit will make no difference. Otherwise we wouldn’t see pile-ups on fog bound motorways every November, despite lower temporary speed limits being flashed at them in bright neon. That, surely is alerting them if nothing is.
A safe speed is one in which the driver can stop in what he can see to be clear. The local authority has no way of knowing what that may be at any given time, so, snivelling cowards and cretins that they are, they just ramp down the limit irrespective of the fact that the vast majority can and do manage to navigate the road perfectly safely at higher speeds.
We have already seen this locally where a previously posted national speed limit has been reduced to 40mph. This is not only absurd as the road can be navigated perfectly safely at 60mph, but people continue to do so despite the new speed signs. What happens is that sooner or later, the increasing restrictions bring themselves into disrepute as the punished majority treat them with well deserved contempt.
And why is the Indie calling for this draconian measure?
A breakdown of the 2010-11 figures shows where that concern could most usefully be directed. Deaths among drivers and passengers were up 6 per cent, with rural roads accounting for more of the rise than urban areas, and a disproportionate number of fatal accidents involving drivers under 24.
Given that our accident record is already very good compared with other countries, a 6% rise in one year is statistically insignificant and certainly not a justification for blanket 40mph speed limits that most of us will ignore and the police cannot enforce.
Some young drivers will always drive badly once released from the shackles of the L plate. Despite extortionate insurance and despite months of driver training during which they have been offered a life skill, the hormones kick in and they prang the car and kill themselves – and of course, there are the GINs (god never intended) who manage to scrape through the driving test who get it terribly wrong once unsupervised.
All types of transport take their toll in human life. If we want to move about, this is a risk we accept and we do accept it. Getting those casualties lower will mean ever more draconian law. There comes a point where there is no more that you can do. Possibly we are reaching that point. However, if there is a cure for the young driver with too much enthusiasm, lower speed limits that punish every driver is not it.
The number of fatal accidents involving younger drivers – it should really be no surprise that road accidents are the main cause of death among young adults – should raise questions once again about the rigour of the driving test. Consideration might also be given to whether, perhaps, the legal driving age should be raised. The downside, however, would also have to be weighed. Age may be less of a factor in accidents than inexperience, and any rise in the age at which someone may obtain a licence could penalise those living in areas with poor public transport and encourage more teenagers to drive illegally.
By Jove! I think they may actually have got it.
Imagine, mile after mile of driving at 40 mph, stuck in a long train, no stimulus, brain dead, half asleep. Get a bit of sun and that is what happens now. I’m sure the brain needs changes to keep it alert and watching the back of the car in front doesn’t do it.
The typical 40 mph driver at the moment doesn’t slow for built up areas either, just ploughs on regardless. Come the dark they drive all the time on dipped headlights, braking for every corner and oncoming vehicle. If we don’t die of boredom we will be spending hours waiting for the police to clear the inevitable shunt collisions.
This, of course, is another aspect the “speed kills” lobby choose to ignore.
Not to mention the fact that they’re getting their knickers in a twist over an increase in accidents which isn’t comparing like with like.
Seriously, it’s almost like they’re engineering excuses to be more draconian just for the hell of it.
You don’t say? 😉
I’m from a family of dedicated petrolheads and yet my sister, brother and me have only been involved in accidents while our cars were standing still and the other driver was travelling under the spped limit. The faster you go the safer you are, I have statistics to prove it
Things that people seem to forget once they have passed their test:
How to position their vehicle when turning right.
How to signal correctly on roundabouts.
How to maintain adequate progress.
Lane discipline on motorways.
Anticipation and awareness when approaching junctions, traffic lights and roundabouts
Looking right when emerging from minor junctions.
Allowing adequate space when following another vehicle.
Signalling AT ALL when turning right
Paying attention to the Shat-Lav, rather than the road,
Using a mobile phone while driving (much too common),
Tailgating (I’ve given at least two vehicles Land-Rover towball pressings !)
Paying attention to the car-load of screaming brats, rather than the road
Are parents on the school run particularly prone to tailgating? I ask because it’s something I’ve noticed; the car following so close that I could ask my back seat passengers to pass the driver a polo mint is almost always driven by a woman, often with a child in the front seat, and it’s much more likely to happen at the beginning and end of the school day.
There seems to be something about putting a child in a car that deprives some drivers of all road sense or consideration – I’m inclined to think it’s some basic mammalian protective instinct, misdirected these days into a sense of entitlement to double-park or pull out suddenly and block half the road in order to get little Cordelia to ballet class on time.
(My own children walked to school for all but three years, but approaching the school each morning during those years was a small taste of hell. BTW, I am in no way biased against woman drivers in general, being one myself.)
LR, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.
A fair proportion of the idiots who tailgate me at high speeds and then overtake have signs in the back like ‘Baby on board’. I shit you not. Fucking unbelievable hypocrisy.
My current bugbear is the number of people who join a motorway at 40-50mph, convinced that this is the safest thing to do. They have no idea that what they are effectively doing is appearing, stationary, in a road where the rest of the traffic is moving at 30mph or more.
This! —> “A safe speed is not the same thing as a posted speed. It may be higher or it may be lower and it depends upon the conditions, the state of the driver and that of the vehicle.”
Just yesterday, my wife and I were driving on a rural road we had never been on before. It was very narrow, twisty and turny (which was also fun, to be honest), with high hedgerows often obstructing the view up ahead, as well junctions, entrances and signposts. We came round a sharp bend and were subsequently presented with the national speed limit sign. A few hundred metres ahead was another almost-blind curve. Since we didn’t know the road, there was no way we felt comfortable taking it 60. If we had driven on this road often and knew what to expect at each curve, I suppose 60 mph in our car would be perfectly doable in some places (obviously not the tight bends). Experience, however, and the type of car we were driving, told us to keep our speed down a bit. Just because you can do 60 doesn’t mean it was safe for us to do so.
I doubt a lorry or bus could have even done 45 safely on this road. On the other hand, I figure a motorcyclist would have no trouble at all doing 60 safely, even if he or she had never ridden it before.
And to be fair, sometimes 30 mph seems too fast for some built-up areas. These are speed limits, not minimum speeds.
Road Safety has become a one trick pony. The only answer to any road safety “problem” is to reduce speed limits.
In the same way, the only answer to road capacity problems is increased CCTV surveillance.
Visit the very excellent “Safespeed” site for real road safety.
The late Paul Smith made a very interesting observation regarding “arousal” as a factor in good driving.
Of course there were the very essential “fnaar fnaar, oo er missis” comments, but he really did hit a nail firmly on the head with that one.
JimS made the same sort of comment at the beginning of this thread.
If one is aroused by something, one tends to pay attention and have a greater degree of concentration. Remove the arousal factor and the interest/attention/concentration suffers. This is what we do when we reduce speed limits.