How To Discourage Motoring

In article , Ian Smith wrote:
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.

Apparently they can, but don't as part of normal operation.

http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/doc...flet_FINAL.pdf
"Variable speed limits. 40, 50 or 60mph
with red rings are automatically displayed.
20 & 30mph with red rings can also be set
if required."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...0100775_en.pdf
"In addition, 40 mph signals are set to protect backs of queuing
traffic. Lower speed limits such as 20 mph or 30 mph can be manually set by
operators when considered necessary for the safety of the travelling public
or those working within the carriageway."

(I can't remember whether I've seen them that low. If so, it was almost
certainly for roadworks where that was an appropriate speed. But I've
seen "fog" warning lights turned on in clear daylight with no fog, and
it's not impossible that somewhere with variable limits would have them
set as low as possible in similar conditions. I've been in motorway fog
where 30mph would have been excessive, but there were no variable limit
signs.)

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".

One can always react.

But being able to guarantee to stop before hitting a pedestrian a few yards
in front would require such a low travelling speed as to negate the benefits
of motor-vehicles. And of bicycles.

Is that what you meant?

d wrote:
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?

Probably most of them since a major factor is motorcycle visitor coming
to exploit the lack of speed limits. In 1993 I think 11 motorcycle fans
(not competitors) were killed on the roads just in the TT week alone.


How would you define carnage?

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


Columbine High School was 765 deaths per 100,000. So you think that we
should not bother with speeding as a cause of road deaths until the UK
reaches an annual road death toll of half a million a year, that being
the point at which its no longer "hardly carnage on the roads" by your
definition.

Tony

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:12:28 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

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".

One can always react.

But being able to guarantee to stop before hitting a pedestrian a few yards
in front would require such a low travelling speed as to negate the benefits
of motor-vehicles. And of bicycles.

Is that what you meant?

The discussion was of travelling at a safe speed. Travelling at a
speed at which one cannot stop in the distance one can see to be clear
- or relying on the reactions of other road users to avoid an
accident - does not come within my definition of "safe".

The hypothetical pedestrian who is allowing for your speed being 30mph
rather than 50mph is hardly "a few yards away".

--

Ian D

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:19:41 +0100
Ian Dalziel wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:12:28 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

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".

One can always react.

But being able to guarantee to stop before hitting a pedestrian a
few yards in front would require such a low travelling speed as to
negate the benefits of motor-vehicles. And of bicycles.

Is that what you meant?

The discussion was of travelling at a safe speed. Travelling at a
speed at which one cannot stop in the distance one can see to be clear
- or relying on the reactions of other road users to avoid an
accident - does not come within my definition of "safe".

The hypothetical pedestrian who is allowing for your speed being 30mph
rather than 50mph is hardly "a few yards away".


I think you're talking about different things. Being able to stop in
the available distance when you can see ahead that same distance is
one thing (this is the careful pedestrian who is judging the speed of
the traffic before stepping out), but being able to deal with an
obstacle (i.e. a careless pedestrian) stepping into the road just ahead
of you is entirely different.

--

Brian Morrison

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:52:09 +0100, Brian Morrison
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:19:41 +0100
Ian Dalziel wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:12:28 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

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".

One can always react.

But being able to guarantee to stop before hitting a pedestrian a
few yards in front would require such a low travelling speed as to
negate the benefits of motor-vehicles. And of bicycles.

Is that what you meant?

The discussion was of travelling at a safe speed. Travelling at a
speed at which one cannot stop in the distance one can see to be clear
- or relying on the reactions of other road users to avoid an
accident - does not come within my definition of "safe".

The hypothetical pedestrian who is allowing for your speed being 30mph
rather than 50mph is hardly "a few yards away".


I think you're talking about different things. Being able to stop in
the available distance when you can see ahead that same distance is
one thing (this is the careful pedestrian who is judging the speed of
the traffic before stepping out), but being able to deal with an
obstacle (i.e. a careless pedestrian) stepping into the road just ahead
of you is entirely different.

In what circumstances might driving at 50mph past pedestrians who are
likely to step into the road be construed as "safe"?

--

Ian D

Tony Raven wrote:
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

How did you reach an average of 11 ?

Tony Raven wrote:
d wrote:
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?

Probably most of them since a major factor is motorcycle visitor coming
to exploit the lack of speed limits. In 1993 I think 11 motorcycle fans
(not competitors) were killed on the roads just in the TT week alone.

How does it compare with motorcycle visitors coming to exploit the speed
limits on the A537, in recent years?

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:26:21 +0100
Tony Raven wrote:
Care to tell us how many of those deaths were related to excess speed?

Probably most of them since a major factor is motorcycle visitor coming
to exploit the lack of speed limits. In 1993 I think 11 motorcycle fans
(not competitors) were killed on the roads just in the TT week alone.

Who cares about bikers? If they want to become organ doners thats up to them.
And the whole point of the TT is its dangerous.

Columbine High School was 765 deaths per 100,000. So you think that we
should not bother with speeding as a cause of road deaths until the UK
reaches an annual road death toll of half a million a year, that being
the point at which its no longer "hardly carnage on the roads" by your
definition.

Sound about right. 1000 people a year die by falling down the stairs at
home. Perhaps we should mandate that all stairs have airbags at the bottom
or maybe just ban 2 storey houses altogether?

Life has risks, deal with it or go live in a monastery and huddle in a corner.

B2003

Nick Finnigan wrote:
Tony Raven wrote

Really!!! Well, an average IoM road death rate of 11 per annum in a

How did you reach an average of 11 ?

Figures issued by the IoM Government. 112 deaths over the ten years
from 1993-2003 and 1042 seriously injured.
http://www.gov.im/lib/news/transport...fetyinitit.xml

Tony