andrewducker

We should increase speed limits on urban trunk roads to 40, and reduce them on urban non-A-roads to 20. That will slow down traffic on most urban roads, while probably having little effect on journey times.

And we should enforce the law. It brings the law into disrepute to have laws on the books that are not enforced. If you don't think you should get a ticket when you are speeding, you should call for speed limits to be abolished, not for speed cameras to be abolished.

I'd really like to see dynamic speed-limits. We already have them variable by road, (and in some very few cases by time of day, I think?); there's easily the technology to have them variable by visibility, rain, traffic levels, pedestrian count, and so on. It'd mean that drivers would have to pay a bit more attention, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I don't think there should be a set speed limit for motorways and each should be approached on a case-by-case basis, but that many roads would benefit from no upper limit if it's safe.

You could also increase penalties for causing accidents by dangerous driving, and include excessive speed in that even if there's no limit, no limit should be "use your judgement" not "go as fast as you like".

I concur though, people whinging about cameras really annoy me, get the speed limit changed you fool.

Of course, it'd also really help if we had a compulsory motorway driving skills element to the licence, and civility and getting out of the way were taught, driving in Germany on two-lane autobahns is normally easier than t3+ lane motorways over here.

Whoever thought the motorway speed limits should be 60 has clearly never driven on a motorway.

Personally I dont think general road speed limits need to be raised, but I think the policy of changing roads from 60 to 40 or from 40 to 30 for no reason needs to be stopped and reversed. I also think that using road narrowing instead of speed bumps is utterly stupid - they CAUSE accidents. Speedbumps at least have the amusing side effect of breaking the front spoilers on chavs cars.

I object to speed cameras that are put in place purely to raise revenue, quite often they're in the middle of nowhere on a straight bit of road that could possibly be the only safe place to overtake on that road for miles. People end up fustrated stuck behind slower moving traffic, and hence are more likely to take risks when overtaking.

Raising speed limits should be taken with a pinch of salt - not all conditions/roads warrant travelling at maximum permitted speed - example on skye where there are derestricted areas of road, but due to bends and blind crests of hills, you'd be insane to do more than about 40.

Motorways, again, take into account traffic conditions - I've driven up the m74 numerous times and been the only car for miles, having an increased speed limit in cases like that makes sense. In france we noticed that the motorways over there have two max speed limits, one for good weather (130kph) and a lesser one (110kph i think) for adverse conditions, again, makes sense.

What I'd also like to see are minimum speed limits - doing 40mph on a motorway is tantamount to suicide, it's almost as dangerous as driving in excess of the speed limit. And trucks, when they decide to overtake each other going up a hill on a dual carriageway...

The problem is one deeper than just speeding, it's an inherent problem of law. Law is a binary function over an anlogue system. The actual safe driving speed for any piece of road varies wildly with the specific context of time, weather conditions, traffic, time of day, driver condition, car condition and so on. A sober driver, at 3am, on a clear dry night, on a motorway, driving a modern car at 120mph, with a couple of training courses under their belt is likely to be safer than a driver just under the drink drive limit, in heavy traffic, on a rainy day, driving at 50mph, just after passing their test.

The difference between the two situations has to be the judgement of whoever it is enforcing the laws (either the police who decide whether or not to arrest you, the prosecutor deciding whether or not to take the case to court or the judge deciding whether or not you're guilty). This is the reason I object to traffic cameras. They have no opinions and neither do the people that process the photos and send out the fines. It's also why I object to the police having quotas for tickets. It wholly removes the reason for the laws in the first place: to make the roads safer.

Woah Polls with stats...

Salivates...

I'm a boring driver. I like not dying horrible fiery vehicular death.

You have no 'no limits' option for the motorway question.

I have realised since last night and looking at poll that we do in fact have a near perfect solution - everyone under stands that the law in reality allows you to go c 10% over 70 mph which gives you pretty much what most people voted for - 80 mph, give or take a bit for conditions.

Now you might say it's better to have a law enforced as is. But that social norm is so embedded if you put the limit up to 80, people would assume that mean 90, give or take. So let sleeping dogs lie,huh?

The bit about how most people don't ask for higher limits is psychologically fascinating. It implies either that we think the law is right for "them" - but, "we" expert drivers that we are, should be allowed to bend the rule that needs to exist for others :-) - or that we know in our hearts we're wrong to think it's safe to drive over 70 but we wish no one would notice. The former shows an internal understanding of the fact that laws need to be universalised, which is an key bit of legal theory..

I'd go for dynamic limits myself - I drive on motorways at as off peak as I can manage when 90 is a sane limit - but I'd stick to 70 or even 60 at peak. But I do wonder how well again, the "orher drivers who aren;t as smart as me" would deal with this..

rd traffic law is a nightmare.

ps can you show me again how you did that setting up polls with stats thing?

pps I am shattered! tell me I have to come to badminton!

Edited 2008-09-11 16:39 (UTC)

I don't think we need to change speed limits up anywhere, and there is a compelling case for extending 20mph zones much further, especially where people live. I fundamentally don't believe that we should design or change our cities around cars. Cities are for people.

There's a lot of hot air talked now especially from the roads lobby that it's wrong to believe in a hierarchy of transport options which places any one form as being less important (the phasing of traffic lights against private cars in London being an example). I somewhat agree, rather liking equality myself, and wish that the cretins who've been digging up the (pretty awful) cycle facility I use to cross the North Circular and get to work every day thought perhaps maybe even for one second that they had to give equal warnings, consideration and as an outcome safety to cyclists, pedestrians and car drivers. Instead of which I get pedestrians diverted onto my cycle path and no warning. You would never close a road without warning, yet for a cycle facility which forms a crucial north/south link this is no problem.

There's some merit in increasing speed limits on certain types of trunk road but only if there is no need to share these roads with buses, cyclists and mopeds. This is the case only on a very limited set of roads and it should be remembered that congestion is far more an economic effect than of any link to the speed limit.

On the topic of enforcing the law, we really need to enforce the mobile phones and driving laws properly. Just because lots of people do it doesn't make it any more safe. It is morally reprehensible that we tolerate death as an every day occurrence due to the selfish nature of a majority.

Hmm, transport doesn't half get my goat.

Edited 2008-09-11 19:00 (UTC)

I have this weird idea that speed limits should depend on the safety of the roads. Highways with four lanes per direction and slow, easy curves should have no speed limits (but carefully policed safety laws like tailgating and using the passing lane only for passing). Speed limits should drop when there are good reasons for it -- construction, junctions where people need to be able to get up to speed safely when they first come on a road, neighborhoods, etc.

Right now, in America, speed limits are usually arbitrary, encouraging people to ignore them -- even when there are really good, non-obvious reasons to slow.

I think laws should be sensible, followed, and strictly enforced when broken.

Is it a religious objection you have to using checkboxes in polls? Or did you just construct a poll providing the exact same options as checkboxes to see if anyone would comment on it?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject