How To Discourage Motoring

On Thu, 09 Sep 2010, Roger Mills wrote:
On 09/09/2010 16:14, Ian Smith wrote:

So, where are the thousands of miles of motorways with 30mph limits
that I've apparently forgotten about?

I don't know what you're on about!

Someone said that there are thousands of miles of motorways and
dual carriageways - which are outside the scope of the inhabited
areas where you are particularly keen to control speed - but I
don't remember anyone claiming that they were *all* limited to
30mph.

I set out a thought experiment in which the speed limit was 30mph but
it was safe to drive at more than 50mph. In a subsequent posting I
referred to that example and asked where it occurred.

I was told that it occurred on motorways and many dual carriageways.

I expressed some surprise, and agreed that a motorway with a 30mph
limit sounds odd. I still think it sounds odd, and I still don't know
of any motorway standard road with a 30mph limit.

I was subsequently told that I had forgotten about 2000 miles of such
road.

If you claim that, you must be distorting what was said out of all
recognition for the sake of cheap point scoring.

No, it's all set out quite clearly:

"Ian Smith" wrote
On Thu, 9 Sep, Brimstone wrote:
"Ian Smith" wrote
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Brimstone wrote:
"Ian Smith" wrote
On Wed, 08 Sep, Roger Mills wrote:
On 08/09/2010 20:46, Ian Smith wrote:

Suppose the speed limit on a piece of road is 30mph.
Suppose the conditions are such that it's not safe to drive
above 52mph. Then if you drive at 30mph or less then you
are driving at a speed that is safe for the conditions and
that is obeying the speed limit.

[the example is a 30mph limit, but safe to drive at 52mph]

Ah, so in formulating your second example you accept that
there is absolutely no correlation between what is *safe*
and what is arbitrarily imposed by some bureaucrat.

No, I do not accept that.

It was an example. There may be, somewhere in the country a
situation where that example exists as some time but it does
not follow that there is, in general, no correlation between
safety and speed limits.

If you can identify the location and prove the situation
occurs, then please do so.

[there may be somewhere that example exists ... if you can identify
the location please do so]

The motorways and many dual carriageway trunk roads.

[the direct response to my request identify where that example exists
was "the motorways and many dual carriageway trunk roads"]

Really? The motorway network has a speed limit of 30mph?
I agree - they should definitely reconsider that. I think a good
case could be made for raising it to at least 60mph.

[I express surprise]

So that's a "Bugger, I'd forgotten about the 2000 odd miles of
motorway and other high quality dual carriageways" is it?

[apparently, not only does the example exist on motorways, there's
"2000 odd miles" of it]

If there are 2000 miles of motorway and high-quality non-urban dual
carriageway with a speed limit of 30mph, I did not forget about it
because I was completely unaware it existed.

I agree absolutely that 30mph is probably an unreasonably low speed
limit for motorway standard roads from which all but motor traffic
is excluded. If I lived somewhere such that I wanted to use it
regularly, I would probably support a campaign to have the limit
raised. However, I don't know of any.

I note that despite being told that 2000 miles of motorway match my
example (ie, have a 30mph limit) no-one has actually come up with any.
There has been one example of a motorway that does not meet motorway
standards where the limit is 40mph, but that seems to be as close as
anyone has got yet. I agree that this does not necessarily mean it
doesn't exist. It looks unlikely that that there's 2000 miles of it,
despite Brimstone's certainty.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

"Ian Smith" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 9 Sep, Brimstone wrote:
"Ian Smith" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 9 Sep, Brimstone wrote:
"Ian Smith" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Brimstone wrote:
"Ian Smith" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 21:15:01 +0100, Roger Mills

wrote:
On 08/09/2010 20:46, Ian Smith wrote:

Suppose the speed limit on a piece of road is 30mph. Suppose
the conditions are such that it's not safe to drive above
52mph. Then if you drive at 30mph or less then you are
driving
at a speed that is safe for the conditions and that is obeying
the speed limit.

Ah, so in formulating your second example you accept that there
is absolutely no correlation between what is *safe* and what is
arbitrarily imposed by some bureaucrat.

No, I do not accept that.

It was an example. There may be, somewhere in the country a
situation where that example exists as some time but it does not
follow that there is, in general, no correlation between safety
and speed limits.

If you can identify the location and prove the situation occurs,
then please do so.

The motorways and many dual carriageway trunk roads.

Really? The motorway network has a speed limit of 30mph?
I agree - they should definitely reconsider that. I think a good
case
could be made for raising it to at least 60mph.

So that's a "Bugger, I'd forgotten about the 2000 odd miles of
motorway and other high quality dual carriageways" is it?

If there are 2000 miles of motorway and high-quality non-urban dual
carriageway with a speed limit of 30mph, I did not forget about it
because I was completely unaware it existed.

I agree absolutely that 30mph is probably an unreasonably low speed
limit for motorway standard roads from which all but motor traffic is
excluded. If I lived somewhere such that I wanted to use it
regularly, I would probably support a campaign to have the limit
raised. However, I don't know of any.

I have already explained why I do not support raising the speed limits
on the motorways I do know of, which generally have a 70mph limit.

Where are teh motorways with 30mph limits?

There is no mention of 30 mph limits in the post to which I responded.

It's still quoted in the thread above.

I set out a thought experiment featuring a 30mph limit.

That was many posts before mine.

In article , Roger Mills wrote:
On 09/09/2010 16:14, Ian Smith wrote:

So, where are the thousands of miles of motorways with 30mph limits
that I've apparently forgotten about?

Someone said that there are thousands of miles of motorways and dual
carriageways - which are outside the scope of the inhabited areas where
you are particularly keen to control speed - but I don't remember anyone
claiming that they were *all* limited to 30mph.

Brimstone didn't say *all*, but he did say there were thousands of miles
of them, when asked for an example of a location with a 30mph limit and
a much faster safe speed.


If you claim that, you must be distorting what was said out of all
recognition for the sake of cheap point scoring.

Brimstone gave the motorways as an example of a location with a 30mph
limit and a much faster speed limit. Either Brimstone was implicitly
claiming that the motorways in question had a 30mph limit, or he was
introducing completely irrelevent motorways for no reason.
So if anyone is distorting here for the point of cheap point scoring,
it isn't Ian.

In article , Ian Smith wrote:

I note that despite being told that 2000 miles of motorway match my
example (ie, have a 30mph limit) no-one has actually come up with any.
There has been one example of a motorway that does not meet motorway
standards where the limit is 40mph, but that seems to be as close as
anyone has got yet. I agree that this does not necessarily mean it
doesn't exist. It looks unlikely that that there's 2000 miles of it,
despite Brimstone's certainty.

It's possible that a variable speed limit on a motorway might have been
left at 30mph when over 50mph was safe sometime. Not for 2000 miles though.

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 02:32:27 +0100
Phil W Lee wrote:
Nick Finnigan considered Thu, 09 Sep 2010 18:27:16
+0100 the perfect time to write:

Tony Raven wrote:

The evidence is that when motorists are allowed to judge a safe speed
for themselves it is abused.

What is the speed distribution for cars using the open roads on the IoM?

That might be relevant if we narrowed all our roads to a similar
degree, removed all motorways and the vast majority of dual
carriageways, and ripped out all the bypasses so that all traffic had
to travel through every town and village.
Oh, and banned car journeys of more than 30 miles.

Really? Seems totally relevant to me. Despite the lack of speed limits
you don't find carnage throughout the island because when left to their
own devices most drivers are perfectly capable of picking a safe speed.
You'll get the odd boy racer who'll overcook it but that sort ignore limits
anyway.

B2003

On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 21:17:07 +0100, "Tim Ward"
wrote:

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...

Ah, so in formulating your second example you accept that there is
absolutely no correlation between what is *safe* and what is arbitrarily
imposed by some bureaucrat. In that case, what is the *purpose* of the
limit?

One point that you may have missed is that the simple existence of a speed
limit makes driving faster than the speed limit dangerous. Consider the
person crossing the road or pulling out in front of you - they will be
expecting you to be obeying the speed limit when deciding whether it is safe
to go or whether they have to wait.

Driving at a speed such that you cannot react to someone pulling out
or stepping into the road is a strange connotation of "safe".


--

Ian D

On 10/09/2010 09:54, Ian Dalziel wrote:
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 21:17:07 +0100, "Tim
wrote:

"Roger wrote in message
...

Ah, so in formulating your second example you accept that there is
absolutely no correlation between what is *safe* and what is arbitrarily
imposed by some bureaucrat. In that case, what is the *purpose* of the
limit?

One point that you may have missed is that the simple existence of a speed
limit makes driving faster than the speed limit dangerous. Consider the
person crossing the road or pulling out in front of you - they will be
expecting you to be obeying the speed limit when deciding whether it is safe
to go or whether they have to wait.

Driving at a speed such that you cannot react to someone pulling out
or stepping into the road is a strange connotation of "safe".


I'm not sure precisely what point the previous poster (One point that
you may have missed . . ) was making. Was he saying:
(a) that because people are likely to assume that you are driving at
below the speed limit, it is *dangerous* to drive above the limit, OR
(b) that the limit provides a false sense of security, and it would be
safer if it was higher, or didn't exist at all?

I would totally agree that you need to drive in such a way that you can
stop if someone steps or pulls out into the road unexpectedly - but that
has little to do with the arbitrary posted limit. There will be
occasions when you need to drive at considerably *below* the posted
limit in order to achieve that. When there are young children playing at
the roadside, I frequently drive past at 15mph even though the limit is
30. Equally, there are other occasions when you can safely drive above
the limit - such as on a deserted road in the middle of the night.

In any event, other drivers and pedestrians need to be able to assess
the *actual* speed of approaching vehicles - and it is unsafe to assume
that it will *always* be below the posted limit.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

d wrote:


Really? Seems totally relevant to me. Despite the lack of speed limits
you don't find carnage throughout the island because when left to their
own devices most drivers are perfectly capable of picking a safe speed.
You'll get the odd boy racer who'll overcook it but that sort ignore limits
anyway.


Really!!! Well, an average IoM road death rate of 11 per annum in a
population of 80,000 makes that 14 deaths per 100,000 population per
annum. For Great Britain its 2538 deaths for 61 million or 4.2 deaths
per 100,000 per annum. Sounds like carnage to me. If the IoM figures
translated to the UK we would have 8,500 road deaths per annum, a figure
only seen here during WWII.

How would you define carnage?

Tony

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:51:34 +0100
Tony Raven wrote:
Really!!! Well, an average IoM road death rate of 11 per annum in a
population of 80,000 makes that 14 deaths per 100,000 population per
annum. For Great Britain its 2538 deaths for 61 million or 4.2 deaths
per 100,000 per annum. Sounds like carnage to me. If the IoM figures
translated to the UK we would have 8,500 road deaths per annum, a figure
only seen here during WWII.

Care to tell us how many of those deaths were related to excess speed?

How would you define carnage?

Someone letting off a machine gun in a school. Perhaps you think this is
on that sort of level?

B2003

On 10 Sep 2010, Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , Ian Smith wrote:

I note that despite being told that 2000 miles of motorway match my
example (ie, have a 30mph limit) no-one has actually come up with any.

It's possible that a variable speed limit on a motorway might have been
left at 30mph when over 50mph was safe sometime. Not for 2000 miles though.

Do variable limits ever go as low as 30? I've certainly seen 40 on
the M25, but I don't recall seeing them go lower than that.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|