50mph National Speed Limit!!

this sort of thing does my head in

6% of serious accidents are due to people breaking the speed limit (according to a police report i read) the other 94% are due to people being stupid - but the government spends nearly 100% of the budget (for road safety) on this 6% - go figure....


All we hear about is measures to reduce speed (the 6% remember)

If the police and the government were serious about road safety they would actively tackle the other 94% - you know - care and attention - tailgating - talking on the phone - driving not appropriate to the conditions - driving drunk - driving with drugs etc etc

I thought politics was banned on this forum...
 
Do you know that tailgating is not yet an offence? Personally, I think it's one of the worst things you can do behind the wheel.
 
matty said:
if people were taught to drive properly in the first place it wouldnt be a problem. Oddly we used to have the safest roads, but since speed camera and traffic calming sillyness took off we have gone done to 6th in europe..go figure
Click to expand...

Exactly. Not enough effort and money going into educating people so that they do the right thing. Instead more rules, restrictions and penalties. Doesn't solve the problem.
 
I think it's a good idea personally. But I also think it will only be of any use if they change other things at the same time, like learning to drive in he first place.

I think they should start by changing things for learner drivers. Something like ...

  • Raise the legal age for driving to 18 or even 21
  • A 1 year intensive learning minimum, before a full licence is issued
  • A minimum amount of driving hours with an approved driving professional
  • Before any driver can buy a high performance car, they must show proof of a minimum of 5 years diving experience. Or even pass a competence test.

  • Real life lessons. Being shown actually footage of the aftermath of a fatal accident.
  • Having at least a full weeks attendance at a centre where learner drivers have to listen to family members of those killed on the road, being interviewed/talked to about their loss.

  • The green P plates being law, and enabling traffic police to pull them over for random vehicle checks
  • After 1 (maybe even 5) year on the road fully licensed, the driver must re take the practical test. If they fail the second time they must start from scratch.
  • All weather testing. (see below)
  • All terrain testing
  • A course on vehicle maintenance, with a test at the end. The basic but important stuff, like checking the air in your tyres.

I know they all must sound very harsh, but I honestly believe that is the way to go to put a stop to more than 50% of accidents, and possibly all fatal accidents. Then the speed cameras can be removed/recycled (so they are not just dead money). I also think a 2 car maximum per household is another good idea. It's time people started using public transport more. The amount of traffic on the roads these days is just silly. I bet more than half of it is also unnecessary.

The all weather testing would be difficult to do since the weather is so unpredictable. But I think if the learning time is enforced to a 1 year minimum (retest after 1-5 years) hopefully in that time most drivers will have experience most, if not all kind of driving conditions. Then some of those conditions can be recreated, and a test carried out.

I've said this before and I'll say it again ... Having witnessed the way the death of a family member can destroy the family they leave behind, on more than one occasion; I strongly believe that the rules of the road are far too slack at the moment. There needs to be drastic change. The best place for that to start is the beginning. In the mean time as many restrictions as possible should be enforced on the roads until the new, more experienced drivers filter through. Unfortunately doing something about the poor drivers of today will be very difficult. Maybe imposing a retest for all drivers every 10 years would be a good start. Obviously that test would have to be different to the 'new driver' testing system. Unless of course the driver fails a retest, then I think they too should have to start from scratch.

I've only ever had a few driving lessons. I never will learn to drive because I don't want to. I don't want to be left in charge of a vehicle that could potentially destroy peoples lives. My hubby is an advanced motorist, and I feel 100% safe with him driving, if it were only us on the road. But when in built up areas or on the motorways, I am 100% terrified of other drivers. Thankfully Chris' ability has saved our skins a few times in the past, which I am VERY grateful for. I remember setting off on our holidays about 10 years ago. Very early in the morning, approaching a blind corner... just as we rounded it we were faced with a lorry coming at us on the wrong side of the road. It took days for me to calm down after that near miss. Thankfully Chris managed to get out of the way with only a split second to spare.

It all may seem very over dramatic. But I will never forget seeing the curtain close around the coffin containing a young family member and her unborn child (she was 5 and a half months pregnant). I will also never forget how it has and still is having an such an awful impact on her parents. Parents that spent years and years wanting their own child. Going through pregnancy and loss, almost giving up. Then they decided to adopt Heather. She was their whole world, though in her teens a problem child. But as she moved into her twenties she began to change. Her life was just getting on track, she had a new life to look forward to, and that of her first child. Then it was all ripped away by some idiot who bumped her off the road. That same idiot was killed in another accident a few years ago.....
 
Last edited:
Jo said:
I think it's a good idea personally. But I also think it will only be of any use if they change other things at the same time, like learning to drive in he first place.
Click to expand...

If the aim of this is to reduce road deaths, as the Government suggests, rather than merely to raise revenue, then they would tackle the biggest problem areas first.

A disproportionate number of road deaths are motorcyclists, something like 10 times more relative to the number of riders if I recall the figures. So banning all motorcycles would have an immediate effect, reducing road deaths by around 20%.

Of course they won't do this, it would lose far too many votes. However what they are doing will have no impact whatsoever on motorbikes as the cameras don't record motorbike licence plates.

Make no mistake, this measure has far more to do with revenue than anything else.
 
Jo, you make some very good points there. I believe the standard of new drivers as a whole leave a lot to be desired. When I learned to trive I was taught to drive first and foremost - yet now I know people learning and they are being taught to pass a driving test.

Once I had passed my test I took an advanced course which taught techniques such as motorway driving etc - the stuff you don't do in the lessons. In my opinion this should be compulsory - have a motorway catagory on a licence that can be revoked where necessary (Have you seen some of the standards of driving on a motorway, shocking).

Dumb down britain has essentially removed a level of responsibility in drivers. It used to be a drivers responsibility to slow down, stick to the speed limit etc. Now the council and the police had taken on responsibility for slowing down drivers.

The majority of people behind the wheel are safe drivers. They will maintain a safe distance from the car in front, brake appropriately for corners and drive at a safe speed for the road. Yet with this change they are being penalised for the actions of a few who, if resources were correctly allocated, could still be caught and fined.
 
trapper501 said:
If the aim of this is to reduce road deaths, as the Government suggests, rather than merely to raise revenue, then they would tackle the biggest problem areas first.

A disproportionate number of road deaths are motorcyclists, something like 10 times more relative to the number of riders if I recall the figures. So banning all motorcycles would have an immediate effect, reducing road deaths by around 20%.

Of course they won't do this, it would lose far too many votes. However what they are doing will have no impact whatsoever on motorbikes as the cameras don't record motorbike licence plates.
Click to expand...
But how many biker deaths are a direct result of car drivers not being totally aware of their surroundings. So car drivers kill bikers, lets ban all bikes... poor example IMO


Make no mistake, this measure has far more to do with revenue than anything else.
Click to expand...
This.
Quoted in bold for emphasis.
 
RichardtheSane said:
But how many biker deaths are a direct result of car drivers not being totally aware of their surroundings. So car drivers kill bikers, lets ban all bikes... poor example IMO.
Click to expand...

I've used the same argument as the Government has in deciding on this route of reducing the speed limit from 60 to 50. In fact my methodology is less flawed as I have identified a far larger proportion of road deaths than they have.

Bikers die because there is insufficient protection for them at the speeds they travel. If there was any logic to the Government's argument they would be tackling areas of biggest concern, but they aren't.
 
andy_fozzy said:
Perhaps we all ought to move to Germany, as things are soooo perfect there......

What are the statistics like?
IE, deaths on roads, and road traffic accidents?

Let me guess, pretty damn good :razz:
Click to expand...

Yeah why don't you do that...

Road accident fatalities are very low on the A,B and C type roads but worse for A-Bahns, where the incredibly high speeds occasionally result in very bad collisions...
In the winter, most accidents are caused by the bad weather - what you all experienced briefly during the last two months we have to contend with every year, sometimes ten times worse...
Four people drowned this winter when their cars skidded off roads and into canals or rivers... but very few accidents are caused by excessive speed - even on the A-Bahns...where drivers can reach 180-190mph in their Merc/Bimmer/Audi Estates...and they do...first thing those guys do is get them de-restricted...

It's not perfect here, by any means - there are always going to be hazards, but they tend to be a different nature...here, pedestrians have right of way, so we all tend to drive through towns and villages at 30kmph instead of the usual 50kmph (32MPH)...there's a time and place to drive fast, just as there's a time and place to drive slowly...
Last time I drove in the UK was Easter 2008 and I was amazed at how busy the roads were compared to here...(Central London, South-East - M25, M3, A303, Devon, Exeter region). I don't think you need to lower the speed limits on A and B roads, because for the most part, those speeds cannot be realised at peak times anyway - and at quiet times, what's the problem?

It's all smoke and mirrors - so the Government can hold their hands up and say "Look we're doing Something about Road Safety Issues" Instead of focusing on driver training and situational awareness, maybe with theory and practical re-tests at regular intervals. In the Army we have to re-take our FMT600 every time we move to a new unit, on average every two or three years...who else does a new theory and practical test that often?
Speed cameras are a visible sign of 'doing something' whereas people sitting down to re-test isn't...
 
It's gov. spin + a revenue earning move.
Gov principle nowadays is 1. Find something 2. Villify it 3. Then tax it (I see speeding fines as a revenue earner).

Few roads that I use are suitable for 60mph and, in any case, I tend to drive for economy so I am not too bothered about a 50 mph limit.

There was 50 limit on all non motorways and a 60 limit on motorways (if my memory is correct) some time in the 1970's to conserve fuel during a time when there were restricted supplies due to trouble in the Middle East.
 
It will probably increase road rage when the idiot that always wants to get there before the accident is now being delayed by an extra couple of nanoseconds.

I think all car drivers should be made to pass their motorbike test before being allowed behind the wheel. Awareness of your surroundings is much more important on a bike and good teaching stays with you.

It really doesn't matter what speed limits they put on our roads, when the vehicle manufacturers are allowed to sell ballistic weapons people are going to buy them and use them.

Yet again the government is taking the most negative option available that will only affect the law abiding in any case.
 
Grockle said:
I think all car drivers should be made to pass their motorbike test before being allowed behind the wheel. Awareness of your surroundings is much more important on a bike and good teaching stays with you.
.
Click to expand...

Easier to make all drivers doing the theory test ride a pedal-bike through busy traffic just to remind them how intimidating cars are when handled badly...

I can't see anyone buying a motorbike just to drive a car...let's weigh up the options: Car = warmer in Winter, cooler in Summer, dryer, safer, quieter, nice music to listen to...somewhere for all my luggage, able to chat to my girlfriend etc etc...don't have to get changed every time I want to pop out...blah, blah, blah...:lol:

I know, I know...my Bro is a biker and we go at this every time we meet...lol
 
trapper501 said:
Bikers die because there is insufficient protection for them at the speeds they travel. If there was any logic to the Government's argument they would be tackling areas of biggest concern, but they aren't.
Click to expand...



Dangly bits!

Bikers die if they fall off or are knocked off. Simply travelling at any speed with no protection will NOT kill anyone.

One of my greatest and siplest pleasures when I ride is to take my helmet off and ride over the moor. I can hear properly. I can smell. I have peripheral vision. I'll admit that I travel slower when I don't have a helmet on but that's as much to do with prolonging the pleasure of the ride as it is with the safety aspect.

I think all car drivers should have to do the equivalent of the CBT that motorcyclists have to do before they're allowed to drive on the road - at least then they will have a clue as to how to pull away, change gear and stop. Mandatory retests every 5 years or so would help as well. I'm sure that most drivers who passed their tests 10 years ago would fail a test now, especially if they were tested on their normal driving!

Finally, the speed limits are just that, LIMITs not targets.
 
Nod said:
Dangly bits!
Click to expand...

I'm not actually having a go at bikers, merely pointing out how ridiculous the claim is by the Government that this change has anything to do with reducing road deaths.

Nod said:
Bikers die if they fall off or are knocked off. Simply travelling at any speed with no protection will NOT kill anyone.
Click to expand...

The same applies to cars, but the reason so many more bikers die as a proportion of their number is the effect that speed has on the severity of their road collisions. I'm not a biker, but spent 15 years married to a road traffic collision investigator.

You can't escape the facts about bike riding. I recall an interview with Carl Fogarty years ago where the interviewer asked him what sort of road bike he rode.

The answer? He said he would never ride a bike on a road, too many vehicles going the other way.


Nod said:
Finally, the speed limits are just that, LIMITs not targets.
Click to expand...

yes, that seems to escape those that bleat about the difficulty of staying within them.
 
Nod said:
Finally, the speed limits are just that, LIMITs not targets.
Click to expand...

err no...

you should drive at the posted speed limit unless it is unsafe to do so with regard road conditions (physical: i.e. bend in the road; atmospheric: rain, fog etc) or other traffic...driving below the posted limit annoys other drivers and causes an obstruction...in fact it's more likely to cause accidents due to other drivers becoming impatient.
Driving significantly below the posted limit will get you pulled and fined.
 
If you're a **** behind the wheel, then a drop from 60 to 50 will make no difference at all.

It's not speed that kills, but poor concentration, awareness, judgement etc. Speeding is easy to clamp down on and raises huge revenue (for the govmnt to waste), but the real causes are difficult to control.

I'm still a huge believer that they should stick people on motorbikes as part of their test and make then ride around a busy town. It's guaranteed that all the aspects I mentioend above that really cause deaths on roads will improve.

At least with more cameras, the health service, military funding, condition of our roads, public transport etc will all improve hugely from the huge influx of money gleaned from speeding convictions.......YEAH RIGHT!!!!
 
Last edited:
Arkady said:
err no...

you should drive at the posted speed limit unless it is unsafe to do so with regard road conditions (physical: i.e. bend in the road; atmospheric: rain, fog etc) or other traffic...driving below the posted limit annoys other drivers and causes an obstruction...in fact it's more likely to cause accidents due to other drivers becoming impatient.
Driving significantly below the posted limit will get you pulled and fined.
Click to expand...

No, sorry, that is an incorrect interpretation of the highway code.

The highway code says this The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions.

Nothing at all about a direction to drive at the posted speed. You drive at a safe speed up to the absolute maximum of the speed limit. If you attempt to drive at the speed limit you can't help but break it.
 
trapper501 said:
No, sorry, that is an incorrect interpretation of the highway code.

The highway code says this The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions.

Nothing at all about a direction to drive at the posted speed. You drive at a safe speed up to the absolute maximum of the speed limit. If you attempt to drive at the speed limit you can't help but break it.
Click to expand...

No sorry, back at ya...
I think I stated quite clearly that you should drive at the speed limit unless it is unsafe to do so...
I have no difficulty whatsoever in driving at posted limits - maybe the new legislation is designed for those who can't drive properly?
 
Arkady said:
No sorry, back at ya...
I think I stated quite clearly that you should drive at the speed limit unless it is unsafe to do so...
I have no difficulty whatsoever in driving at posted limits - maybe the new legislation is designed for those who can't drive properly?
Click to expand...

Whatever, I'm sure the Government will be very happy with your money.
 
trapper501 said:
Whatever, I'm sure the Government will be very happy with your money.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, struck a nerve did I?

I've never had a speeding ticket, never been stopped...
and I like to drive fast...

If you can't drive at a given set speed, then you need more lessons...
 
Arkady said:
Oh dear, struck a nerve did I?
Click to expand...

No, your superior attitude is probably useful when people are shooting at you, but it does explain why squaddies find it so difficult to integrate.
 
Our Superior attitude usually comes by simply being superior...

...where is all this coming from btw? Is it just because you can't drive? Or that you don't accept that some people like to drive faster than you, even if you can't see the point in doing so?

Our freedom of choice is being eroded - and that is the issue here...not how fast people drive...did anyone vote for this new law to be passed? Was there a referendum called? No...we are being dictated to once again and like supine sheep we just lie back and take it...
 
trapper501 said:
No, your superior attitude is probably useful when people are shooting at you, but it does explain why squaddies find it so difficult to integrate.
Click to expand...

What on earth does his being in the armed forces have to do with anything?

Arkady said:
Our freedom of choice is being eroded - and that is the issue here...not how fast people drive...did anyone vote for this new law to be passed? Was there a referendum called? No...we are being dictated to once again and like supine sheep we just lie back and take it...
Click to expand...

You voted when you elected an MP. If you don't like it, contact your MP. If everything was done by referendum nothing would ever happen.
 
Last edited:
Blapto said:
...You voted when you elected an MP. If you don't like it, contact your MP. If everything was done by referendum nothing would ever happen.
Click to expand...


On the other hand I want my MP to represent me, NOT to rule me.
 
Blapto said:
You voted when you elected an MP. If you don't like it, contact your MP. If everything was done by referendum nothing would ever happen.
Click to expand...

Being in the Armed Forces puts us at a slight disadvantage when it comes to the electoral process - besides, since when did writing to an MP get legislation changed once it was decided upon?
How long has this move been in the pipeline and who knew about it before the announcment was made...
How much consultation was made with road-user groups?
 
CopeImages said:
It's not speed that kills, but poor concentration, awareness, judgement etc. Speeding is easy to clamp down on and raises huge revenue (for the govmnt to waste), but the real causes are difficult to control.

I'm still a huge believer that they should stick people on motorbikes as part of their test and make then ride around a busy town. It's guaranteed that all the aspects I mentioend above that really cause deaths on roads will improve.
Click to expand...

I've long said that. Everybody should be made to take their CBT as part of gaining a driving licence, it would save more lives than anything else. A driving licence should become a privilege, not a right, and the standard of training and examination needs to be massively increased. People should be shown the results of a high speed car crash, to show what happens to a human body when it hits an immoveable object at 45mph.

Personally I think this is a way for the government to make even more money from drivers and riders in this country. As has been mentioned previously in this thread, speed is a factor in only 6% of fatal accidents, if you read the statistics properly, and yet 99% of government road safety spending goes on clamping down on speeding.

I'll continue to drive at speeds I feel are appropriate for the conditions. In built up areas, this means I obey the speed limit. Out in the country on lightly trafficked, dry roads, I'll go as fast as I feel safe and comfortable doing, which sometimes is a lot more than 50mph
 
Arkady said:
Being in the Armed Forces puts us at a slight disadvantage when it comes to the electoral process - besides, since when did writing to an MP get legislation changed once it was decided upon?
How long has this move been in the pipeline and who knew about it before the announcment was made...
How much consultation was made with road-user groups?
Click to expand...

Register as a service voter.

Did you read the article? It says:
"The 50mph proposal will be laid out in a consultation document to be published in the early summer. "

It isn't law yet.
 
Blapto said:
Register as a service voter.

Did you read the article? It says:
"The 50mph proposal will be laid out in a consultation document to be published in the early summer. "

It isn't law yet.
Click to expand...


Yep..did that..thanks very much...

Read the article..yep...thought it might help if I was going to talk about it afterwards...

You know how these things go...once the seed is planted...
 
It's still up to you to let your views become known rather than moan about it online where nothing will happen.

I wrote to my MP recently about Clause 152 of the Coroners and Justice bill with my concerns about the impacts on privacy and data protection. There was a lot of public pressure and it has been removed.

Democracy does work, sometimes, when people get involved.
 
RichardC27 said:
I've long said that. Everybody should be made to take their CBT as part of gaining a driving licence, it would save more lives than anything else. A driving licence should become a privilege, not a right, and the standard of training and examination needs to be massively increased. People should be shown the results of a high speed car crash, to show what happens to a human body when it hits an immoveable object at 45mph.
Click to expand...

where do you stop though? surely we;d all have to take HGV licenses so we can get an idea of the reduced visibility that a class 1 has, drive tractors so we understand the inherent dangers in tractor driving, etc

personally i have no desire to ride a motorbike, or infact a moped, i like motorbikes but i never wise to own or ride on one, however i always keep an eye out for bikers, give them room etc, so really why should i take a cbt?


i agree with the rest of your post though, speed isnt a problem when the conditions are fit for that speed.
 
Last edited:
trapper501 said:
Whatever, I'm sure the Government will be very happy with your money.
Click to expand...

They won't get his money unless he's caught. If you can't see a big ass speeding camera coming your way then you have to question your road perception.
 
KayJay said:
They won't get his money unless he's caught. If you can't see a big ass speeding camera coming your way then you have to question your road perception.
Click to expand...

Read the article, it says "average speed cameras". I'm guessing they don't mean your average speed over a distance of a couple of yards.
 
You can't see an average speed camera? That's new. They even hang over the road most of the time.
 
No I'm not. If you can't see a speeding camera then you must be doing something wrong. Also the fact that it's an average speeding camera, has no one else noticed that all of a sudden cars seem to travel at the same pace between the cameras? Seriously, Britain seems to have this really bad issue with moaning about EVERYTHING.

I'm all for the cameras, in fact, I'm all for increased road tax for personal vehicles and perhaps even increased fuel duty for personal vehicles. Anything to get cars of the road is a good thing in my opinion.
 
If it's an average speed camera you need to worry about your speed between the two cameras (which normally aren't big bright yellow things.) It's completely different from worrying about your speed as you see a big bright yellow gatso ahead.

Forcing drivers to concentrate on their speed isn't going to help. Drivers should be aware of their speed but not have to spend all their time worrying about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top