• Speed Limits - Necessary for safety? Arbitrarily low? Revenue Generators? What's your $0.02?
    78 replies, posted
The safer driver feels in a car / on the road, the faster he will go. It's as simple as that. I once read about how Swedes changed their driving lane from left to right. Everyone suspected that the day it happens there will be more crashes. But suprisingly, there weren't. Heck, they were even lower than any other day and the reason is quite simple. Every driver thought "oh my god I'm not used to drive on this lane, surely I'm going to crash" and they reduced their speeds on the road. And on the topic of speed limits. I think that speed limits should exist around places that are expected to have some kind of dangers to drivers and other things (cities, villages, ...). But if we designed those places so the drivers don't feel safe around them, their speed would drop without excessive use of speed limits.
Considering a car is basically a moving metal death trap, it is kind of necessary to impose some limits on them. It's been proven time and time again that most people think they're above average. To put it more bluntly, they think they're better than everyone else, which also includes their driving talent, which means of course they're going to take more risks, and more risks = more deaths.
[QUOTE=tjaze;36816040]And on the topic of speed limits. I think that speed limits should exist around places that are expected to have some kind of dangers to drivers and other things (cities, villages, ...). But if we designed those places so the drivers don't feel safe around them, their speed would drop without excessive use of speed limits.[/QUOTE] This only applies to the majority of drivers. And even then, the issue of the quote below applies (people believe they're above average, more on that later). Speed limits are in place because people are dumb. That doesn't mean all speed limits are accurate or good, but in that case challenge the posted speed and not the idea of speed limits themselves. [QUOTE=Samiam22;36852898]Considering a car is basically a moving metal death trap, it is kind of necessary to impose some limits on them. It's been proven time and time again that most people think they're above average. To put it more bluntly, they think they're better than everyone else, which also includes their driving talent, which means of course they're going to take more risks, and more risks = more deaths.[/QUOTE] This. Hand out paper to a room full of people. Ask them to rate their intelligence on a scale of 1 to 10. Your bell curve should top out between 6-8. However, if 5 is average intelligence, that shouldn't actually be possible, right? For those interested in this cognitive bias, you can read more about it here: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority]Illusory Superiority[/url] That bias is why everyone thinks they're a good driver.
All this bullshit about safety is a genuine example of how revisionist history and misunderstood facts takes place. Richard Nixon established the national speed limit of 55 mp/h TO SAVE GASOLINE. Nixon was trying to increase fuel efficiency and reduce foreign dependence by giving a national speed limit. There are places in the US with no speed limits that have lower accident rates than the rest of the country. Experiments and studies have shown that the less regulation you have on a person's driving, the safer they drive. A town in the Netherlands removed all signs and warnings, and accidents have been reduced due to drivers having to be more alert.
On most roads yes, on motorways maybe not. British motorways were designed with having no speed limits, which is why you see this sign: [img]http://www.aspexdesign.co.uk/rants/national.gif[/img] It used to mean 'end of speed limit' but it was changed later to 'national speed limit' - meaning motorways were reduced to 70mph, and smaller roads 60. According to Clarkson, this is based from the stopping distances and safety of a car from the 1960s - so cars are a lot safer now and motorways are wider, have more lanes, and are more lit up and night. It also doesn't make sense that the speed limit of this road: [img]http://www.ukstudentlife.com/Travel/Transport/Car/Motorway.jpg[/img] is just 10mph more than this: [img]http://i45.tinypic.com/opzihj.jpg[/img]
This is an issue that I think is being handled terribly here in Sweden. Instead of going to the root of the problem and catching drivers who don't use turn signals and are generally driving recklessly, they decide to lower the speed limits and chase after speeders. Sure, it's a relief when accidents happen, but not a solution to the problem. Accidents happen not because of speed, but just because people do not signal where they are going. Germany has higher speed limits and yet they don't have the same ratio of accidents simply because people respect other drivers there. I wish they would put higher tickets for not using signals and not keeping distance when possible.
[QUOTE=matt.ant;36855445]On most roads yes, on motorways maybe not. British motorways were designed with having no speed limits, which is why you see this sign: [img]http://www.aspexdesign.co.uk/rants/national.gif[/img] It used to mean 'end of speed limit' but it was changed later to 'national speed limit' - meaning motorways were reduced to 70mph, and smaller roads 60. According to Clarkson, this is based from the stopping distances and safety of a car from the 1960s - so cars are a lot safer now and motorways are wider, have more lanes, and are more lit up and night. It also doesn't make sense that the speed limit of this road: [img]http://www.ukstudentlife.com/Travel/Transport/Car/Motorway.jpg[/img] is just 10mph more than this: [img]http://i45.tinypic.com/opzihj.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Uh. That tiny road has a speed limit of 60mph? Holy shit, even 60kph would be stretching it.
[QUOTE=LarparNar;36855520]Uh. That tiny road has a speed limit of 60mph? Holy shit, even 60kph would be stretching it.[/QUOTE] Yes and those roads count for a massive 50% of road deaths, but they're too sparsely used so it's considered too expensive to police them or to apply a proper speed limit in comparison to inner city roads
[QUOTE=matt.ant;36855445]On most roads yes, on motorways maybe not. British motorways were designed with having no speed limits, which is why you see this sign: [img]http://www.aspexdesign.co.uk/rants/national.gif[/img] It used to mean 'end of speed limit' but it was changed later to 'national speed limit' - meaning motorways were reduced to 70mph, and smaller roads 60. According to Clarkson, this is based from the stopping distances and safety of a car from the 1960s - so cars are a lot safer now and motorways are wider, have more lanes, and are more lit up and night. It also doesn't make sense that the speed limit of this road: [img]http://www.ukstudentlife.com/Travel/Transport/Car/Motorway.jpg[/img] is just 10mph more than this: [img]http://i45.tinypic.com/opzihj.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] i think that probably counts as single track so is actually 30 but there's still plenty of tight windy roads that are 60!
[QUOTE=Haxxer;36681861]Speed limits are great. If you're travelling at 30 KM/h (18 mph) by the time you have stopped, a car going 50 KM/h (31 mph) has STARTED REACTING and proceeds to jump on his/her break. Only this shows that speed limits are needed. [editline]9th July 2012[/editline] If a pedestrian is: Hit by a car at 60km/h, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed. Hit by a car at 50km/h, 5 out of 10 of pedestrians will be killed. Hit by a car at 30km/h, 1 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed.[/QUOTE] I have a very interesting infographic in my drivers manual that curtails something like this. It was that going 50mph (80km/h), you will travel 66ft (20m) before you react and put your foot on the brake, and by the time the car comes to a complete stop you will have traveled an additional 226ft (68m). That's roughly the length of an entire football pitch, and a little over one American football field. That's a huge distance.
I've just learned that my city is going to be changing all the current 30mph zones into 20mph over the next couple of years. Bristol is hard enough to get around as it is, without everybody slowing down to a crawl. I can't think of any benefit at all. When these changes come in, I'll work out how much extra fuel I'm using (by driving in a lower gear and stopping more often) and send a bill to the council.
[QUOTE=Haxxer;36681861]Speed limits are great. If you're travelling at 30 KM/h (18 mph) by the time you have stopped, a car going 50 KM/h (31 mph) has STARTED REACTING and proceeds to jump on his/her break.[/QUOTE] This doesn't make sense as it currently is worded. Surely they would begin to react at the same time, whether or not they stop as soon. Still, lol 18 mph. That's an utterly shit speed limit under pretty much any circumstances.
Here in Portugal, we got different speed limits for different kinds of vehicles, but I'll go over the ones for a normal 4 wheeled car: 50 Km/h max inside a town 90 Km/h max outside 110 Km/h max on highway (or was it 120? think its 110..) (assuming there are no other regulations) Those speeds are perfect really. In here, we have pretty crammed up roads. Whenever I start my driving lessons, theres always a metric fuckton of cars in the road, half parked on the sidewalk and on the lane, jamming up traffic. And since theres only 2 lanes big enough for one car each (they used to be big for 2 at the same time, but now they have cars parked in them) its HELL to go through a somewhat busy street. Those speeds are good enough to keep most* people from going like rockets, especially when inside town theres always someone crossing the fucking road. Besides, you don't need to go any faster than that. (most doesn't covers some jackasses who do like 80 km inside a town and barely don't get in trouble)
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;36789804]What exactly do you mean by this?[/QUOTE] You set a limit to say for instance 130kmh, and most traffic will only be going 120kmh. I was simply saying that speed differential isn't a reason for speed limits.
I am not at all sure. There are many factors at play that could increase or decrease the risk of accident, including the type of road, surrounding terrain, people that are new to driving, and so on. Experimentation would certainly aid in finding the best solution for particular roads. A decent idea comes to mind, which is a voluntary speed limit. If you follow the speed limit and don't drive recklessly, the road owner would pay for all of the expenses. If you don't, you are liable for the damages. The primary issue with such a system would be fraud, yet I have a difficult time imagining that there would be many people wanting to take such a risk for a low payout. It is pretty interesting to consider how individuals might decide this issue, and I really don't know what is best.
When driving, it's not yourself you should be worried about but the drivers around you. Can anyone here really trust their fellow driver to choose a sensible speed limit if unrestricted? I know I can't. I can't trust them to not drink, not text, to pay attention to the road in general. So in the end, I'd choose a fixed speed limit because I care about my safety.
A city without speed limits would be something like WW1 trench warfare. You try to be reasonable with the opposite trench, but you know where you have to go, so you push forward to gain more land. Massive casualties ensured.
This is an interesting question; being that I live in Crete, Greece (Has one of the top driving fatality statistics) and I am originally from the United States I can honestly say, yes, speed limits as well as other driving related laws are imperative to ensure the continued safety of a population. Here in Greece something like drunk driving is considered an accident, meaning, if you harm/kill someone your sentence will not be as severe as let's say the UK. Driving here in Greece is insane; there are posted speed limits and there are road laws, however; people choose not to follow them. I cannot count how many near front in collisions I have almost had because someone was trying to speed around a semi truck on a blind curve. Yes, law enforcement/government agencies profit from people's mistakes, but hey, it's how you learn not to disobey the law. After paying a $200 ticket that person may be less prone to speeding so much; if they do it again it's another ticket plus the possibility of a suspended license. This system is a way to encourage you to follow road laws, even if sometimes it can be unfair.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.