Speed limits - or not

[Sares]

If you want to know my views on that subject, you can find them here: http://www.nurburgring.org.uk/benlovejo ... eedlimits/

Ben,
I'm quite concerned by assertions on your website that councils lack the necessary expertise to make decisions on roads in their areas.

I quote from your website:

"The first problem is that councils do not have the necessary expertise to set appropriate limits based on an objective assessment of the risks. They theoretically act on advice from the police, but in practice often fail to seek such advice in the first place or ignore it when it is offered.

The reason for this odd behavour appears to stem from a combination of arrogance - councillers believing themselves qualified to reach judgements in areas in which they have no qualification or training..."

Every council has Highway Engineers, either directly employed, or retained as consultants. These are trained, qualified and experienced individuals. They assess proposed changes to roads within the remit of the local council (ie. those roads not controlled by the national Highways Agency). Safety is one of their most important considerations, and they are most certainly not amateurs taking decisions on matters they do not understand. Their guidance is important and their recommendations carry weight.

These engineers do not always consider the needs of non-motorised users as much as I think they should, but the statement that the councils lack expertise is simply untrue.

Furthermore, there are other considerations in towns besides road safety, such as user amenity, noise, pollution, and the ability of residents to easily reach other parts of the town. Local councils seem to me to be best placed to consider and balance these possibly conflicting factors.

[Ben Lovejoy]

My view is that the police are best placed to make decisions regarding speed limits.

Ben

[Howard Peel]

Having worked in a local authorities highways team I can confidently state that:

Almost without exception loacl authority highways officers - the ones who deal with such issues- are well trained and take due notice of the guidelines relating to how 'appropriate' speed limits should be set. (A lot more notice than they do of the advice relating to the design of cycle facilities that's for sure!).

Regardless of the above, almost all local authority highways officers (and councillors come to that) are motorists and tend to take a rather car-centric view of things such as speed limits. As a consequence any 'bias' that does occur is likely to favour the speed and convenience of motorists over the safety and convenience of other road users.

The police do provide an input when speed limits are being considered for modification. In my experience most of the time they are opposed to limits being reduced simply beacuse they do not have the resources / are not really interested in enforcing any lowered limit. Often they will take such a stance even when thier own casualty data clearly shows the necessity of such an action. Where they are agreeable to a reduction in a speed limit the police tend to favour 'self regulating' limits and so often blindly support schemed which involve pinch-points and other 'cyclist unfriendly' features on the misguided view that drivers won't speed on roads fitted with such features. (And in general that simply are uninterested in or at best are unaware of the impact such features have on cyclists).

I have worked with a number of senior police officers responsible for their forces traffic management/ road safety polices and have only met one who knew what he was talking about. If anyone lacks proper training in such areas it is the police! What's more the police have a tendency to move officers around, so once they start getting a hang of what is required they are moved to a difference post and another 'clueless newboy' is moved in.

[Ben Lovejoy]

Having been involved in a speed limit consultation and met both the local authority and police representatives involved, I think we'll agree to disagree on this one ...

[2Tubs]

I agree in parts Ben.

It's a shame that we have to legislate to prevent people from diving in an unsafe manner. They should do it through a social conscience.

Agree with that.

But I disagree entirely that a speed limit can be dangerous. Only the wanton ingnorance of a limit is dangerous. If the national speed limit was 5 mph would the limit be dangerous, or the drivers ignoring it create the danger?

Unlimited speeds are only safe if everybody travells at roughly the same speed. You used an example of 90mph in your article.

Fine, if every vehicle was capable of those speeds. And capable of doing so safely.

There is another reason for limiting speed which I fully support. It has little to do with safety.

We are living in times where oil is fast becoming an expensive resource. We have limited supplies. I don't think getting home in time for eggheads is reason enough to excuse driving at excess speeds needlessly using excess oil.

Just my opinion, like . . .

Gazza

[Ben Lovejoy]

On a philosophical level, you are right. But on a pragmatic level, if our objective is people slowing down in areas of high hazard density, then I'd say it makes sense to do what works. If lower or extended limits between villages means people do higher speeds through them, then that's an unsuccessful approach and should be abandoned.

The oil issue is a rather bigger one. We've had about 40 years of oil left for the last 20-30 years: extraction technology has improved, keeping pace with demand. At some point, we will indeed run out, and by that point we'll have to have alternatives in place. The pace of progress in alternative energy sources is pretty impressive, so I have no doubts we'll meet the challenge even if we don't crack fusion within the next 40 years.

Ben

[Howard Peel]

My view is that the police are best placed to make decisions regarding speed limits.

Perhaps you believe that having a propensity to flout legal speed limits*- both on and off duty- somehow 'qualifies' police officers to make decisions relating to road safety even when they totally lack professional qualifications.

* And not just speed limits. Humberside Police's senior 'Road safety' officer was recently require to resign after being caught drunk driving!

[2Tubs]

On a philosophical level, you are right. But on a pragmatic level, if our objective is people slowing down in areas of high hazard density, then I'd say it makes sense to do what works. If lower or extended limits between villages means people do higher speeds through them, then that's an unsuccessful approach and should be abandoned.

The oil issue is a rather bigger one. We've had about 40 years of oil left for the last 20-30 years: extraction technology has improved, keeping pace with demand. At some point, we will indeed run out, and by that point we'll have to have alternatives in place. The pace of progress in alternative energy sources is pretty impressive, so I have no doubts we'll meet the challenge even if we don't crack fusion within the next 40 years.

Ben

Ony when oil becomes an issue on a level of emergency will people start looking to alternatives on a global level. The money now is in oil. For all the talk of the oil companies "investing" in alternative energies it's no more than greenwash. They spend a fraction of their budget on researching these alternatives compared to their advertising of oil products.

There is also the environmental impact of driving at excess speeds. In general, the faster you go, the more you pollute.

I think the problem is our dependance on the car, no matter how it's powered. We simply don't need to make as many car journies as we do. Our lifestyle (working further away from home, shopping out of town etc) has forced us into the car and for some reason, we don't want to change.

Personally I tend to use my caronly at the weekends being a train/cycle commuter. If I'm honest, I make at least one cr trip that I could've used the bike for.

We need homeworking (or working more local to home), and local shopping. Don't ask me how . . .

Gazza

[Howard Peel]

Having been involved in a speed limit consultation and met both the local authority and police representatives involved, I think we'll agree to disagree on this one ...

So, I take it that you found the police were far more biased towards the 'petrol head' side of the 'speed debate' than the local authority officers you met. Par for the course really...

[Howard Peel]

I think we'll agree to disagree on this one ...

Lets, after all I know full well that speedophiles never let facts get in the way of their almost religious belief that 'speed is not dangerous...


'It does indeed stand to reason that fast-moving objects should inflict more damage than slow-moving, objects, and future times will wonder at the imbecility of an age that needed to point it out. But, unfortunately, this is necessary because the motor propagandists throw doubts on it and even deny it. In other circumstances this would be comic. With the lives and safety of millions at stake it is tragic- and criminal.'

'The road hog becomes the safest driver on the roads, and with every increase of speeds the pedestrians, especially the children and elderly and infirm persons, become more to blame. Argument is impossible. One might invite the motor propagandists to submit to the simple experiment of trying to avoid a bullet, or, more suitably, a shell, discharged at close range. But when the Big Lie is sharply challenged in this way, or when some especially revolting result of it has disturbed public opinion, the motor propagandists, again following the Nazi technique, temporarily modify it, usually to "speed is dangerous only according to the circumstances"- incidentally, itself, past a certain point, an equally Big Lie- only when the challenge or the danger is past, to re-establish it again as their main theme, the idea being that even if it is not completely believed, it will always "leave traces" and cause ordinary people to "doubt" and "waver."'

J.S. Dean 'Murder Most Foul: a study of the road deaths problem' (1947).

[Ben Lovejoy]

Ony when oil becomes an issue on a level of emergency will people start looking to alternatives on a global level.

As oil grows scarcer and more expensive, it becomes more financially worthwhile to invest in alternative energy sources. It doesn't need to reach emergency levels, just profitable ones.

There is also the environmental impact of driving at excess speeds. In general, the faster you go, the more you pollute.

Actually, the greatest pollution is in congested traffic, which is one of the reasons that deliberately creating congestion (as many local authorities have done) is madness.

Our lifestyle (working further away from home, shopping out of town etc) has forced us into the car and for some reason, we don't want to change.

Too many people think that the answer is trying to bully, price, coerce, guilt-trip or otherwise force people out of their cars. The answer is the opposite: put attractive alternatives in place.

I live 30 miles outside London. Unless I have tonnes of stuff to carry, I do the journey by train. I don't do that because of any of the anti-car stuff, I do it because there's a fast, reliable train service on which I can always get a seat. The same is true of all the people I know locally. When people are given better alternatives, they'll use them.

But all of the anti-car stuff is just counter-productive. People don't like being told what they should do, and tend to dig their heels in when faced with bullying tactics.

As with everything in life, it's about balance. I love cars. I also love cycling, walking and relaxing on a train while the miles fly by. Give people a good mix of options and they'll use them all.

Ben

[Ben Lovejoy]

I think we'll agree to disagree on this one ...

Lets, after all I know full well that speedophiles never let facts get in the way of their almost religious belief that 'speed is not dangerous...

Unfortunately, as your post demonstrates, non-emotive rational debate on the topic is rare.

Ben

[2Tubs]

As oil grows scarcer and more expensive, it becomes more financially worthwhile to invest in alternative energy sources. It doesn't need to reach emergency levels, just profitable ones.

With the green pound being so popular at the moment, it is rather shocking then that the oil companies don't see alternative transport as profitable.

Whatever the reasons, we're still waiting.

Actually, the greatest pollution is in congested traffic, which is one of the reasons that deliberately creating congestion (as many local authorities have done) is madness.

Yes it does add to pollution (which is why I said generally). But then I don't see that as a good reason to allow further pollution with excess speeds.

The reason for congestion is that there are too many cars on the road. We broke the 5 Billion KM car miles last year for the first time. I think that the real impact on congestion is the greater number of miles travelled by car.

Too many people think that the answer is trying to bully, price, coerce, guilt-trip or otherwise force people out of their cars. The answer is the opposite: put attractive alternatives in place.

Agree that more investment should be made in public transport, but why do we need these incentives. If honest, most car commuters could cycle/bus or train. they chose not to. They use the excuse that the busses are dirty, the trains unreliable, the roads are unsafe for cycles. But they're just excuses. To force people into responsible car use, I think they do need to be bullied.

I live 30 miles outside London. Unless I have tonnes of stuff to carry, I do the journey by train. I don't do that because of any of the anti-car stuff, I do it because there's a fast, reliable train service on which I can always get a seat. The same is true of all the people I know locally. When people are given better alternatives, they'll use them.

I'm not anti car. I have a car. I'm anti irresponible car use. If there is such a thing.

But all of the anti-car stuff is just counter-productive. People don't like being told what they should do, and tend to dig their heels in when faced with bullying tactics.

Or we could just fo nothing. Putting alternatives in place could take years. Increasing tax on petrol could be done overnight. Can we wait years?

As with everything in life, it's about balance. I love cars. I also love cycling, walking and relaxing on a train while the miles fly by. Give people a good mix of options and they'll use them all.

You might use them all. I'm afraid that my experience of talking to car commuters is that will not willingly change. They see it as their right, their freedom to drive anytime they like. And it seem that to me, they're saying to hell with the consequences. It all seems rather selfish.

Gazza

[Howard Peel]

Unfortunately, as your post demonstrates, non-emotive rational debate on the topic is rare.

Yes, the rationality (and morality...) of the average 'speedophile' often leaves a lot to be desired, and yes people do tend to become 'emotive' when, however it is dressed up, private car users argue that their 'right' to drive at whatever speed they please, at least most of the time, outweighs the rights of other road users to use the public road without fear and even on occasion to continue to live.

[Ben Lovejoy]

Unfortunately, as your post demonstrates, non-emotive rational debate on the topic is rare.

Yes, the rationality (and morality...) of the average 'speedophile' often leaves a lot to be desired

Have a pleasant day, Howard.

Ben