Community Speed Watch

[JohnK]

I firmly believe speed limits are guidance.
There are times where I don’t consider it appropriate to travel at or near the speed limit, a 50 in a built up area perhaps, so I don’t.
Conversely at the end of a speed limit when you’ve passed the last house and can clearly see there is nobody there is it dangerous to accelerate out of the speed limit zone?
I’d also make the point that a well trained driver with fast reactions in a well maintained vehicle travelling at slightly over the speed limit is much, much safer than an inexperienced driver or a driver with slow reactions or a driver with borderline eyesight or a badly maintained car travelling just below the speed limit.
I like Clarkson’s view on the subject. If speed kills why do only a very small proportion of serious accidents happen on the fastest roads? It’s inappropriate speed that kills. Not speed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MauriceMynah]

There is little point in discussing "Speed kills" in any great depth as it is a slogan, nothing more, nothing less. It is designed purely to give an awareness of the issue of speeding. Whilst I can agree with many of JohnK's points I would remind him that lines have to be drawn somewhere and that those lines are for all drivers alike. It cannot be thought a good enough defense in court to say "Yes, technically I was speeding, but I'm a better driver than most."

[rightsaidfred]

9 hours ago, YnysMon said:

I find it scarey that so many commenters on this thread seem to be justifying, or at least trying to argue that speeding is okay in some circumstances. The facts tell us that in unforseeable circumstances speed kills (I mean when you have to react quickly to something thing not expected).

?

 

I think you are maybe misinterpreting many comments, I don't think anyone has defended speeding for its own sake, yes there  are some instances where speed is the primary cause of an accident and nobody would defend the recklessness involved in those instances, there are many many  more instances where speed is secondary or not involved you only have to look at official statistics to confirm this, there are also instances where the trigger for poor driving is someone driving at an inappropriately slow speed on dual carriageways and motorways, the point is the constant emphasis on speed has detracted from proper policing of driving standards.

There is also a case to be made for a more joined up approach to speed limits than the blanket approach that currently takes very little account of various road types and conditions, you only have to look at the numbers of convictions and the cross section of people involved to realise that the majority of so called speeders and their offences are not criminals or irresponsible people just the likes of you and I going about their every day lives and that is only the ones that are caught, as has been said many times cameras and people pointing guns does nothing to prevent or catch dangerous or reckless driving they just create a great deal of animosity towards authority and the backhanded tax systems becoming all to prevalent these days, if you really want to make local roads safer then get on the backs of local councils to sort out pot holes etc a far greater problem to all road users now days especially with the bad weather approaching.

Fred

 

[Timbo]

I looked up the figures...you all know I'm going to do that at some point by now  , I was quite amazed at exactly how many fatalities in accidents were caused by the pedestrian. From news reports and safety propaganda I had, wrongly, assumed car drivers to be the main problem. As it turns out fifty-four percent of pedestrian fatalities were a result of the pedestrian failing to look, a further twenty-five percent were a result of the pedestrian being reckless, careless or in a hurry. Vehicles exceeding the speed limit accounts for five percent of accidents although accounts for fifteen percent of fatalities.

So...yes speed increases the likelihood of a pedestrian being killed, but is not the highest contributing factor to fatalities...that's down to pedestrians not taking responsibility for their own safety.

The cost of road accidents in this country, taking into account human costs awarded for pain, grief, suffering, missed work, damage to vehicles and infrastructure is approximately £16 billion. We spend a further £20 billion on education, prevention and unreported accidents. That's £36 billion in total.

So who do we target? Drivers or pedestrians. Let's start targetting where the problem actually lays. Do we go for the 79% of fatalities, caused by the pedestrian, or the 5% caused by speeding? I'd say both but target that legislation, education and spending appropriately to the actual causes?

 

[Timbo]

Just a quick addition. I've just driven down the high street of my small town. We've had road works for the past four weeks. Today the road reopened. The road was closed to put in another pelican crossing for access to the new Lidl store just built. So in 880 yards we now have five crossings...and this morning not a single one of them was being used by pedestrians who were all crossing the road between the crossing points threading their way between the traffic, most of them talking on a mobile phone.

[Guest ExMemberKingFisher]

16 hours ago, Philosophical said:

Would the pedal not already be to the floor?

My car does 0 to 60 in 4.6 seconds. 99% of my overtakes are completed with the pedal no where near the floor. The Ford system appeals in that it helps you to keep your eye on the road and not constantly on the dashboard speedo. I remember when learning to drive, my father telling me, you need to drive for the other cars around you. Advice that has always stuck with me.

[JohnK]

Whilst I can agree with many of JohnK's points I would remind him that lines have to be drawn somewhere and that those lines are for all drivers alike. It cannot be thought a good enough defense in court to say "Yes, technically I was speeding, but I'm a better driver than most."

I agree. I’m not trying to argue I should be allowed to speed. Just using that example of why the speed limits should be treated as guidance. I wouldn’t argue that any more than I’d try to argue that driving past a school bus that’s unloading at 29 mph is ok because I’m under the speed limit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Regulo]

Ah! Good advice from instructors, there's another thread we can wander off to. I learnt in 1968, with a good old Eastender, who didn't mince his words. We were travelling along a twisty back road over Ilford way, when he slammed the brakes on (dual control), and calmly said, "Can you effing see round effing corners?". When I said, "No", he replied, "Well, effing stop driving like you effing can, then". Down to basics, shall we say,  but he's probably saved me from plenty of accidents over the years, with loads of advice I've never forgotten. Difficult to forget actually, when it's bellowed in your ear from 2 feet away!

[JohnK]

I was quite amazed at exactly how many fatalities in accidents were caused by the pedestrian.

Interesting stuff. I guess it’s more about the consequence of speeding (greater injuries) than who’s to blame.
Similar point on motorbikes I’d say. Whilst I completely accept most bike accidents are not the fault of the biker in most cases I think the biker could have avoided the accident (I’ve been a biker for longer than I care to remember and I think I survive by assuming everyone is trying to kill me )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest ExMemberKingFisher]

45 minutes ago, Timbo said:

 I was quite amazed at exactly how many fatalities in accidents were caused by the pedestrian. 

 

I wonder what percentage of those pedestrians would have been over the limit to be behind the wheel of a car?

[Bound2Please]

1 hour ago, Timbo said:

So in 880 yards we now have five crossings...and this morning not a single one of them was being used by pedestrians who were all crossing the road between the crossing points threading their way between the traffic, most of them talking on a mobile phone.

Who would be blamed if they got bowled over? I'd say the motorist, for careless driving, speeding, dangerous, driving or driving without due care and attention, certainly not the said pedestrian on the dog n bone, not looking brfore jumping out in the road.

I would also love to know the figures for cyclist (pedal that is) who are fatalities, as in the average week I see at least half a dozen, that are lucky to be alive the way they ride, no if you take into account just reckless riding it jumps into many dozens. None of said incidents I am mentioning here are down to drivers exceeding the speed limit. Why is it that cyclists at fault always stick two fingers up at the faultless driver, having caused the driver to brake hard to avoid hitting them.

End of rant

Charlie

[smellyloo]

Perhaps the answer is to allow drink driving ..... that should keep most drunken pedestrians off the the roads!!!

[WherryNice]

Heres one for you......a large proportion of cars from say the last 20 years or so have ABS fitted(the proportion going up as we get closer to present day) but how many people have experience of it and know how to correctly utilise it without panicking?

You see when most ABS systems activate there is a strong pulsing felt at the pedal which can in some cases lead drivers to panic and take their foot off again. Also people who passed their test pre-ABS will likley have been taught to  cadence brake, where you apply the hard then release if they lock then re-apply and so on.. with ABS you should stamp on the pedal and hold it, the car will do the cadence bit for you whilst you try steer around whatever you may be about to hit....

When I get a new car I usually find a quiet road and have a play to see how it reacts to sudden fierce braking so I have a feel for it should an emergency happen.

[rightsaidfred]

23 minutes ago, Bound2Please said:

Who would be blamed if they got bowled over? I'd say the motorist, for careless driving, speeding, dangerous, driving or driving without due care and attention, certainly not the said pedestrian on the dog n bone, not looking brfore jumping out in the road.

I would also love to know the figures for cyclist (pedal that is) who are fatalities, as in the average week I see at least half a dozen, that are lucky to be alive the way they ride, no if you take into account just reckless riding it jumps into many dozens. None of said incidents I am mentioning here are down to drivers exceeding the speed limit. Why is it that cyclists at fault always stick two fingers up at the faultless driver, having caused the driver to brake hard to avoid hitting them.

End of rant

Charlie

In London its Lorry drivers, bus drivers, pedestrians etc who get the blame never the cyclist, they have their own bit of road yet still jump lights and ride on pavements but that's another story.

Fred

[High6]

Sadly true. I believe the Mayor recently tried to introduce a jaywalking law but was unsuccessful. If you have ever tried to make your way along the pavement in Oxford Street at Christmas you would realise that if pedestrians were confined to pavements London would grind to a halt. The West End is one big pedestrianised area with permitted vehicles - but you get used to it.

[HEM]

On 15.11.2017 at 12:54, Bound2Please said:

Barbara Castle made it a permanent law in December 1967...

IIRC Red Barbara did not have a driving license (which is of course irrelevant to this thread).