National speed limit to be cut to 50mph

[orudge]

Apparently, the government wants to cut the national speed limit on single carriageways to 50mph - enforced, of course, by speed cameras. Local councils will be able to apply for 60mph limits for roads they consider to be "high quality".

The government seems to think cutting the limit will cut casualties. The thing is, on a lot of these rural roads, it isn't possible (or safe) to go at 60mph, and on a lot of these roads, there will be no cameras to enforce the limit anyway. Having 50mph limits patrolled by average speed cameras will probably result in many people thinking "ah, it's a 50 limit, this means I can safely do 50 for the whole length" and driving along like zombies, potentially causing more accidents. Many rural roads have sections that are unsafe to do even at 50, plus others that are perfectly safe to do at, say, 70. Either that or people will just ignore it, of course, and due to the particularly rural nature of the road, nobody will be there to enforce it (as is the case now.)

If the government really wants to cut casualties, it should stop sticking up speed cameras everywhere and actually put traffic police back on the road - speed cameras can't pull over drunk drivers, or those without insurance, can they?

Additionally, the fact is is that it will never be possible to completely stop people dying on the roads. Britain still has one of the best road safety records, but accidents will occur, and often this will just be down to plain old human error. Except it seems that these days, somebody always has to be blamed - people aren't allowed to make mistakes any more.

[Gord]

Some of the rural A roads in the UK have bigger issues than speed. Visibilty is awful on some of them...particularly at night...so many need their cats eyes relacing and the white lines need re-painting...particularly the ones at the side of the road (which are essential for knowing which way the road is twisting at night time....and as i was taught...the more paint you see on the road...the more caution you should take). The A361 from Banbury to Daventry is one that springs to mind for poor visibility....as the A518 from Stafford to Newport (Telford and Wrekin)...as well as a whole list of others.

People taking silly risks to try and get past people going too slow seems to be a bigger problem too.

[ostlandr]

We had the 55 mph national speed limit here, imposed originally to save fuel during the 1973 Oil Crisis, then kept on in the name of safety (but mostly because our equivalent of "local councils" needed the revenue from speeding fines.) Most Americans followed our national tradition of ignoring unpopular laws and drove as fast as the conditions allowed. Police, unless operating a speed trap, generally ignored fast drivers if they were not also reckless drivers.
We finally got it amended to 65 mph on "rural interstates" (motorways) and some Western states raised theirs even higher in places where a divided highway can run for 20, 30, 40 or more miles straight and level.

It was an expensive failure IMHO. Reminds me of the old saw about Prohibition:

Prohibition is an awful flop-
We're for it.
It don't stop what it's meant to stop-
We're for it.
It's filled our cities with vice and crime,
and filled our glasses with swill and slime,
it don't prohibit worth a dime-
Nevertheless, we're for it.

[EXTspotter]

What is it with our government and micromanaging speed way more than any other road safety aspect? Seeing as speed limits on motorways are 70 and have been 70 for many decades (not sure exactly how long but it must have been 60s/70s). With improvements in car safety and a rise in the speed limits in other comparable countries, France: 130km/h (80 mph) in good conditions, 110km/h in poor conditions (70 mph), Spain: 120km/h (75 mph), Germany: Unrestricted/130km/h (80mph) reccomended. Italy 130km/h (80 mph) in good conditions, 110km/h (70 mph) in poor. No-one would consider speeding in built up areas which have 20, 30 or 40 speed limits for a reason, but when you get to motorway levels, speed is less important, unless you are in thick fog or whatever.

[doktorhonig]

Speed differences matter. If, for some reason, Trucks are limited to 80 km/h, driving at 130 can be dangerous, because other cars want to overtake the trucks, but don't get a chance to do so.

I think, the 130 in Austria are ok, lowering it to 120 or 110 would be ok to reduce the noise. But I don't think there would be fewer accidents, since most of our accidents don't happen on highways. Stop drunk drivers and you increase road safety a lot.

Actually, I felt very fast, driving 70 mph in Michigan last year (south of Detroit), but I think this was due to the width of the lanes and the length of the road marking lines.

[SmatZ]

Stop drunk drivers and you increase road safety a lot.

I am really interested in your stats. Here, only ~2% of accidents are caused by so-called "drunk drivers". (with the meaning alcohol level > 0) (I don't know how they distinguish between 'natural' level of alcohol and that from alcoholic beverages, but okay)...

Not long time ago I read stats where 4%-7% randomly stopped drivers had non-zero alcohol level in breath. So it means driving with some level of alcohol is in fact (significantly!) safer than with zero level.

[Ameecher]

In my local area (North Norfolk) there is going to be a trial of attempting to slow people down on back roads. Currently most of them are listed as National Speed limit with the black diagonal band across the white circle but the idea is to replace these with a green band to apparently highlight the danger of actually doing the speed limit on these roads. However not sure how effective that'll be... the other part of the plan of targetting primary schools with road safety plays that the children act in and their parents come along to is quite a good idea, in my opinion, by targetting the speeders via their children.

[Kevo00]

What is it with this government and micromanagement in general? Why can't they just leave things alone? Not that the Tories in London and SNP in Scotland are immune to the present 'ban everything' attitude.

I think 60mph is a fair speed limit, and in any case drivers are only supposed to drive as fast as road conditions allow. The people they should target IMO are the people who do not adjust their driving according to road and weather conditions, because they are the ones that cause the accidents. Such as the people that do not slow down for 30 zones in towns, and tailgate you when you slow down for 30 zones. I'd agree with Owen that more physical traffic cops would be better than more cameras, which just add to the surveillance society and create a hazard for everyone else as the people too impatient to drive to the speed limit slow down for them.

I agree that the speed limit should be raised to 80 on a motorways as well, as they are our safest roads. Towns are the real problem area and where road safety resources should really be concentrated, no matter how much traffic calming measures etc. annoy the Clarkson mentality.

[doktorhonig]

Not long time ago I read stats where 4%-7% randomly stopped drivers had non-zero alcohol level in breath. So it means driving with some level of alcohol is in fact (significantly!) safer than with zero level.

According to these statistics, more than 8% of all fatalities in car accidents are caused by drunk drivers. It may not seem much, but those could easily be reduced.
In rural areas the rate is higher, at least it feels like that, if you work as a paramedic during your civil service.

[SmatZ]

According to these statistics, more than 8% of all fatalities in car accidents are caused by drunk drivers. It may not seem much, but those could easily be reduced.

Drivers with non-zero alcohol level are marked as the inflictor of the accident, ignoring all other conditions here. Does that apply to you too? What percentage of drivers has non-zero alcohol level in those times when those accidents happen? (if they happen mostly on weekends, then what is the percentage of "drunk" drivers on weekends - over work days much less people drink)

Do you think those people wouldn't have an accident if they had zero alcohol level? What about people who drive more carefully when they have non-zero alcohol level?

What are other conditions those "drunk" drivers have an accidets?
(I always find it funny when people with 0.02 BAC are called "drunk")

Simply said: under the exactly same conditions (driver, month, day of the week, hour, weather, tiredness, number of people in car, mood in the car, length of travel, ...), what is the chance a driver will have an accident while he has BAC 0.00, 0.02, 0.05, 0.10 ? It's not easy to measure, but you are showing statistics that don't take these parameters into account.

edit: one important thing I forgot - it also depends on driver's personality a lot. Who is more likely to have non-zero level? Young low-experienced driver in a fast (and/or old) car, or middle-aged man in regular, more expensive but safer, car? Is the reason of accident still the alcohol level?

[doktorhonig]

"alkoholisiert" (alcoholized? probably doesn't exist) means, that you wouldn't be allowed to drive, so these people have at least 0,05 %.

At that level, you're not drunk in a sense that you couldn't walk or talk, but you still react quite a bit slower and it's good that you don't drive in such a condition. Yes, there are differences in reactions between people, but especially when you get older, you become slower. But if someone drinks and increases his reaction times on purpose, we shouldn't let him drive. Period. And I'm not talking about 0,000002 %, because you've eaten to many apples. There are restrictions, and lowering them from 0.08 % to 0.05% has already decreased the number of casualities. I don't know, if lowering it further will improve the situation, but stopping those who are above the current limit certainly does. And that's what I want. More controls, more policemen, especially when there are festivals.

[andel]

Part of the problem is that on many roads they are quite windy and dangerous at 60MPH anyway - you need to consider doing 50 instead... the councils are often limited roads at 50 in many areas now anyway, which is part of the thinking... Speed Cameras enforce the limits better than police cars because a police car cannot sit at the side of the road 24/7 - a camera can. A camera is cheaper to run than a police officer too - and generates revenue that goes back to councils to stimulate road maintenance.

The problem is that through people having faster cars, they're speeding more - big problem. But on the safer, wider roads, the limit will be raised to 60MPH rather an kept at 50. So don't worry your head about it Owen - your nice new road will be kept for you to zoom along still.

This whole thing is aimed more at A-Roads which are showing more and more to becoming places of danger - not the nice new stretch of A133 that is wide enough for 3 lanes.

Fun, isn't it?

[orudge]

Part of the problem is that on many roads they are quite windy and dangerous at 60MPH anyway - you need to consider doing 50 instead... the councils are often limited roads at 50 in many areas now anyway, which is part of the thinking...

True, but on many roads, the problem isn't people doing between 50 and 60 - many roads have sections that even 50 would be too fast for. Part of the point of driving is the driver is meant to be able to think "well, this road is very bendy - while it may have a speed limit of 50/60, it may not be appropriate to do that for the whole length". It seems that we're not allowed to think for ourselves these days, instead having to have signs warning of every bend, speed limits on them, etc. To a degree, such things are acceptable in localised situations, but I think a blanket "ban" on it is a bit much.

It's interesting to look at what they did in Ireland when they switched to metric. They increased the standard N-road (somewhat equivalent to our A-roads, although theirs are in theory all trunk roads, supposedly of a high quality) speed limit to 62.5mph (100km/h), while they decreased the R-road (B-road) speed limit to 50mph (80km/h). They also sensibly increased the motorway speed limit to 120km/h (75mph). I would perhaps not be against a similar measure here - keep the A-road speed limit at 60mph-ish, perhaps make B-roads 50mph (although I do still know many B-roads where it is safe to do 60mph on various stretches), and increase the motorway speed limit ideally to 80mph. (Stretches of motorway that suffer from traffic congestion look like they're going to be getting ATM anyway, such as the M42 has, so they can have lower limits imposed as necessary. 70mph on various more rural motorways, such as the M6 through Cumbria or the A74(M) though Dumfries and Galloway, is really quite below what could be safely driven by the majority of vehicles these days.)

Speed Cameras enforce the limits better than police cars because a police car cannot sit at the side of the road 24/7 - a camera can. A camera is cheaper to run than a police officer too - and generates revenue that goes back to councils to stimulate road maintenance.

True, and I have nothing against the use of speed cameras where they are appropriate. It's the fact that speed cameras miss out lots of things that traditional traffic police could keep an eye out on that bothers me a bit.

The problem is that through people having faster cars, they're speeding more - big problem. But on the safer, wider roads, the limit will be raised to 60MPH rather an kept at 50. So don't worry your head about it Owen - your nice new road will be kept for you to zoom along still.

That's assuming that, in the current climate of "speed kills", the councils or authorities responsible for the decent roads will want to actually apply for this higher limit.

It must be said of course that this whole thing is a proposal, and it looks unlikely that the current government would be able to push it through before an election. So depending on who gets voted in next year (or whenever the election gets held), it may all come to nothing anyway.

[andel]

Part of the problem is that on many roads they are quite windy and dangerous at 60MPH anyway - you need to consider doing 50 instead... the councils are often limited roads at 50 in many areas now anyway, which is part of the thinking...

True, but on many roads, the problem isn't people doing between 50 and 60 - many roads have sections that even 50 would be too fast for. Part of the point of driving is the driver is meant to be able to think "well, this road is very bendy - while it may have a speed limit of 50/60, it may not be appropriate to do that for the whole length". It seems that we're not allowed to think for ourselves these days, instead having to have signs warning of every bend, speed limits on them, etc. To a degree, such things are acceptable in localised situations, but I think a blanket "ban" on it is a bit much.

It's not so much of allowing people to think for themselves, but its the idiots that think "hey - I'm a fantastic driver - I can do 70 or 80 here and not kill anyone" - and lo and behold, they do kill people - or main. An example is a bend leading to the A1M in Peterborough - a sharp corner but fast too - a woman recently went around it at 60 and straight into the back of a Focus, causing it to fireball.... and kill my cousin's mother and brother.

There lies your example in point - and there are many people who drive stupidly every day.

County Councils would probably be given the chance to grade their roads in the first place and it would give a large majority of roads 60MPH anyway - but in certain places some people should not be even given the chance to think - by the time they've thought about it they're around the corner and in a ditch.

It's interesting to look at what they did in Ireland when they switched to metric. They increased the standard N-road (somewhat equivalent to our A-roads, although theirs are in theory all trunk roads, supposedly of a high quality) speed limit to 62.5mph (100km/h), while they decreased the R-road (B-road) speed limit to 50mph (80km/h). They also sensibly increased the motorway speed limit to 120km/h (75mph). I would perhaps not be against a similar measure here - keep the A-road speed limit at 60mph-ish, perhaps make B-roads 50mph (although I do still know many B-roads where it is safe to do 60mph on various stretches), and increase the motorway speed limit ideally to 80mph. (Stretches of motorway that suffer from traffic congestion look like they're going to be getting ATM anyway, such as the M42 has, so they can have lower limits imposed as necessary. 70mph on various more rural motorways, such as the M6 through Cumbria or the A74(M) though Dumfries and Galloway, is really quite below what could be safely driven by the majority of vehicles these days.)

Going Metric is one thing but B-Roads are supposed to be limited to 50MPH anyway.

Speed Cameras enforce the limits better than police cars because a police car cannot sit at the side of the road 24/7 - a camera can. A camera is cheaper to run than a police officer too - and generates revenue that goes back to councils to stimulate road maintenance.

True, and I have nothing against the use of speed cameras where they are appropriate. It's the fact that speed cameras miss out lots of things that traditional traffic police could keep an eye out on that bothers me a bit.

The traditional police do keep catching things speed cameras can't - imagine a camera like a 3rd arm.

The problem is that through people having faster cars, they're speeding more - big problem. But on the safer, wider roads, the limit will be raised to 60MPH rather an kept at 50. So don't worry your head about it Owen - your nice new road will be kept for you to zoom along still.

That's assuming that, in the current climate of "speed kills", the councils or authorities responsible for the decent roads will want to actually apply for this higher limit.

It must be said of course that this whole thing is a proposal, and it looks unlikely that the current government would be able to push it through before an election. So depending on who gets voted in next year (or whenever the election gets held), it may all come to nothing anyway.

It would be a hard thing to put through and I admit its not likely to go forward easily - but its a suggestion that warrants a bit of thought.

Or did you want to be involved in a traffic accident caused by speeding? Because it happens every day... its not pleasant.

[Dave]

Speed DOES kill.

Don't see why people can come out with figures of "Only 8% of accidents are caused by speeding" etc,etc.

Surely that's 8 percent too many!?

[Ameecher]

B-Roads are supposed to be limited to 50MPH anyway.

National speed limits are categorised by road type (ie dual carraigeway/single carraigeway) rather than classification (M, A, B etc.) so I can't see how you can justify this.

[Gord]

Hmmmm, i thought the rule went that if it had lines down the middle, it's a 60mph road and if it doesn't, it's a 50mph road....unless signs indicate otherwise of course.

[Ameecher]

Hmmmm, i thought the rule went that if it had lines down the middle, it's a 60mph road and if it doesn't, it's a 50mph road....unless signs indicate otherwise of course.

Nope. Single carraigeway (with or without lines) is 60mph, Dual carraigeway (or more lanes) is 70mph. Which is odd because you can be driving down a lane which is barely wider than your car and can officially be doing 60mph yet you'd be outright stupid (and probably upside down in a field) if you did.

Edit: The above is for cars, motorbikes and small vans.

See here for more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_s ... it#Driving

[Gord]

That clears things up a bit.

Like i said before though..better visibility is the key...replace cats eyes...repaint road lines...even put different coloured cats eyes at the side of the road like motorways.

As for daytime...better warning of sharp bends on some A roads, in Northumberland..i noticed that they warn of slight turns in the road but sharp turns just appear. Now i try to stick at sensible speeds on unprecitable roads like that, but not everybody does...and get rid of those cheverons on A roads away from junctions....people don't understand whether you are allowed to overtake on them or not....as far as i'm concerned you can't so i don't...but a double solid white line would be much clearer.

I'm going to be doing my annual drive to Lowestoft this summer....no problems with the A14 but you're lucky to get anywhere near 50, let alone 60 on the A143/A146 anyway, you have to keep your wits about you on the A143...some sections like the approach to Bungay you can obviously get to 60mph on, other sections you can't... (I just don't touch the A11 in the summer to get over to the coast....not until the Elvedon section is sorted out)

[EXTspotter]

I agree, improving the roads themselves by replacing cats eyes and lines, as well as putting in LED/Standard warning signs on dangerous streches to give more warning of sharp corners, crests close to junctions and off camber corners, especially in poor driving conditions would at least slow people down for particular streches which would be much more adhered to and used by motorists than a blanket drop in speed limits.