Speed Limits: How Low Is Too Low?

Nuxx Bar said:

It seems to me that every single time a speed limit is lowered, the
trolls say it's "perfectly fair". Would this just go on indefinitely,
however far a speed limit was lowered? If not, where does it stop,
and why?

Many in-town speed limits, which were previously 30 or 40, have now
been lowered to 20. "Perfectly fair" growl the trolls in each and
every case. So what about 19, 18, 15, or 10? 5? 1? Are they
"perfectly fair", or do accidents suddenly magically stop at 20?
Which limit is "low enough", and why?

Many out of town single carriageway stretches, previously NSL, are now
50 or even 40. "Perfectly fair" apparently. So, how low is "low
enough" on these roads, and why? What about ex-NSL dual carriageway
stretches which are now 60, 50 or even 40? What about motorways? How
low can you go?

I can't wait to find out the answer. Do the trolls want every road to
have a 1mph limit, or would they be happy with us zooming around at
20mph everywhere (wow, how generous of them)? And is there a
scientific reason for whatever levels they come up with, or is it just
down to sheer blind prejudice (as if I need to even ask)? Will the
trolls agree with each other, or will they differ on the exact speeds
at which motorists should suddenly start being labelled child-
murderers (no matter what the conditions)? It's so exciting!

(Gets ready for trollisms like "I don't hate motorists, I just think
they should be made to go slower than cyclists"....)

Thanks in advance

Blobby Frightcycles

Eh?

Nuxx Bar said:

It seems to me that every single time a speed limit is lowered, the
trolls say it's "perfectly fair". Would this just go on indefinitely,
however far a speed limit was lowered? If not, where does it stop,
and why?

Many in-town speed limits, which were previously 30 or 40, have now
been lowered to 20. "Perfectly fair" growl the trolls in each and
every case. So what about 19, 18, 15, or 10? 5? 1? Are they
"perfectly fair", or do accidents suddenly magically stop at 20?
Which limit is "low enough", and why?

Many out of town single carriageway stretches, previously NSL, are now
50 or even 40. "Perfectly fair" apparently. So, how low is "low
enough" on these roads, and why? What about ex-NSL dual carriageway
stretches which are now 60, 50 or even 40? What about motorways? How
low can you go?

I can't wait to find out the answer. Do the trolls want every road to
have a 1mph limit, or would they be happy with us zooming around at
20mph everywhere (wow, how generous of them)? And is there a
scientific reason for whatever levels they come up with, or is it just
down to sheer blind prejudice (as if I need to even ask)? Will the
trolls agree with each other, or will they differ on the exact speeds
at which motorists should suddenly start being labelled child-
murderers (no matter what the conditions)? It's so exciting!

(Gets ready for trollisms like "I don't hate motorists, I just think
they should be made to go slower than cyclists"....)

Thanks in advance

A good first step would be to properly enforce current speed limits.
Satellite tracking may make that possible in the near future, with the
registered keeper automatically issued with a fine for the most minor
of infringements. Less experienced drivers could have lower limits
set, and they would be identified by special 'just passed' plates
fitted to their vehicles which too could be tracked by satellite.

Cyclists, of course, would be exempt from speeding offences.

As a concession to the motorist, speed cameras could be scrapped.

Duncan Smith said:

On Apr 13, 8:21 pm, Nuxx Bar <[email hidden]> wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can't wait to find out the answer. Do the trolls want every road to
have a 1mph limit, or would they be happy with us zooming around at
20mph everywhere (wow, how generous of them)? And is there a
scientific reason for whatever levels they come up with, or is it just
down to sheer blind prejudice (as if I need to even ask)? Will the
trolls agree with each other, or will they differ on the exact speeds
at which motorists should suddenly start being labelled child-
murderers (no matter what the conditions)? It's so exciting!

(Gets ready for trollisms like "I don't hate motorists, I just think
they should be made to go slower than cyclists"....)

Thanks in advance

Blobby Frightcycles

Eh?

Nuxx is on the best drugs the internet can buy.

In article said:

Cyclists, of course, would be exempt from speeding offences.

While obviously a speeding cyclist poses less danger than a speeding
ton of metal, I'd be happy for speed limits to apply to cyclists if
it meant the trolls would stop whining.
Also, I'd like a pony.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thanks in advance

A good first step would be to properly enforce current speed limits.
Satellite tracking may make that possible in the near future, with the
registered keeper automatically issued with a fine for the most minor
of infringements. Less experienced drivers could have lower limits
set, and they would be identified by special 'just passed' plates
fitted to their vehicles which too could be tracked by satellite.

Cyclists, of course, would be exempt from speeding offences.

As a concession to the motorist, speed cameras could be scrapped.

Sounds awesome doesn't it? Not sure how close the technology is
though, a GPS receiver only costs the phone manufacturers about £7 to
fit. But that's a passive receiver - you've still got to trigger an
alarm and get that data to central(ised) location for processing
somehow. And when you scale it up to however many cars are on the
road - it'd be a pretty ambitious project (think NHS computer
system). Mind you, if they could pull it off it ought to generate
enough revenue to pay for itself. I'd actually favour a system
whereby no fines were generated but a signal to the engine would cut
power to maintain the speed limit (force new cars to support this
before they can be sold in UK/EU)

It would probably kill the market for sports models overnight too, and
I can't see the manufacturers taking that lying down - so you'd have
lobbying groups that would need to be appeased over decades (like the
FOREST/ASH battles with no smoking)

And then anyone determined would disconnect the unit somehow (like
taking off the catalytic converter between MOTs to let the engine
breathe more).

All takes thought..

Regards,

Duncan

"Tosspot" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Duncan Smith said:

On Apr 13, 8:21 pm, Nuxx Bar <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Blobby Frightcycles

Eh?

Nuxx is on the best drugs the internet can buy.

No, he's free and it's way too expensive.

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:53:59 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Just to add that Crapman can reply if he wants but I doubt I'll read
it. I've rarely if ever encountered anyone so utterly malicious and
odious. What causes him to be *such* a motorist-hater?

I hate very few people. I had contempt for Smith, but I didn't hate
him, and I consider you a hilarious diversion. Every now and then I
drop by to see if you're still foaming at the mouth, if that's where
you talk from (which is open to dispute) and find that yes, indeed,
you are.

Don't worry, though, there's no danger of you doing any damage
because, just like Smith, your ravings are so self-evidently the
work of a madman that they are unlikely to be taken seriously.

In other news, I have been promoted and am now the senior engineer
for enterprise storage and virtualisation for Europe, the Middle
East and Africa, for a Fortune 500 company. I will be working in a
nice office high up in a modern skyscraper in London and riding my
Brompton from Paddington through the City every day, which I will
enjoy immensely.

I hope you don't get your license back until you learn to control
your anger, though.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

you know? said:

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:53:59 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Just to add that Crapman can reply if he wants but I doubt I'll read
it. I've rarely if ever encountered anyone so utterly malicious and
odious. What causes him to be *such* a motorist-hater?

Quoted message said:

I hope you don't get your license back until you learn to control
your anger, though.

Guy

I must have missed something; mostly because TrollNx is not something I
read very often.

What did he do, and how long is he banned?

Nuxx Bar said:

It seems to me that every single time a speed limit is lowered, the
trolls say it's "perfectly fair". Would this just go on indefinitely,
however far a speed limit was lowered? If not, where does it stop,
and why?

You already seem to have formed answers for yourself, so why ask?

--
Paul - [censored]

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi 'Big and Butch'
'98 Suzuki DR 200 Djebel 'Small but perfectly formed'
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp "When I feel fit enough'

Alan Braggins said:

In article said:

Cyclists, of course, would be exempt from speeding offences.

While obviously a speeding cyclist poses less danger than a speeding
ton of metal,

That is a rather irresponsible generalisation. It may be true that a
car + motorist travelling at 21 mph has more kinetic energy than a bike
+ cyclist travelling at the same speed, but the level of danger depends
on many other factors.

--
Matt B

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:24:27 +0100, Matt B
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

While obviously a speeding cyclist poses less danger than a speeding
ton of metal,

Quoted message said:

That is a rather irresponsible generalisation. It may be true that a
car + motorist travelling at 21 mph has more kinetic energy than a bike
+ cyclist travelling at the same speed, but the level of danger depends
on many other factors.

Not really, no. The number of people killed or seriously injured by
bicycles is low enough that the generalisation is entirely valid.

It would be a pretty unlikely collision where swapping a bike for a
car would /reduce/ the level of danger.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:39:38 GMT, _
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I must have missed something; mostly because TrollNx is not something I
read very often.
What did he do, and how long is he banned?

Pure conjecture on my part, I admit. Not denied by him, mind.

I'm always amused at the idea that drivers with multiple
prosecutions are better drivers than those with none, but we know
well enough that drivers routinely overestimate their own skill
levels.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Nuxx Bar said:

It seems to me that every single time a speed limit is lowered, the
trolls say it's "perfectly fair". Would this just go on indefinitely,
however far a speed limit was lowered? If not, where does it stop,
and why?

Speed limits are like curfews, they are blanket measures targeting the
good and the bad in society without distinction, and legitimising
indiscriminate, ruthless, machine-gun-like enforcement methods. They
have criminalised millions who have caused no danger, whilst condoning,
even encouraging, reckless and dangerous driving within an arbitrary
speed limit + 10% + 2.

--
Matt B

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:52:52 +0100, Matt B
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Speed limits [...]
have criminalised millions who have caused no danger,

Um, no. One thing that you absolutely cannot say about motorists,
criminal or not, is that they have caused no danger. More people
have been killed in the last fifty years by road traffic collisions
than in all the wars in the same period.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy said:

I'm always amused at the idea that drivers with multiple
prosecutions are better drivers than those with none,

You think that the only measure of good driving is number of convictions?

--
Matt B

you know? said:

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:24:27 +0100, Matt B
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

While obviously a speeding cyclist poses less danger than a speeding
ton of metal,

Quoted message said:

That is a rather irresponsible generalisation. It may be true that a
car + motorist travelling at 21 mph has more kinetic energy than a bike
+ cyclist travelling at the same speed, but the level of danger depends
on many other factors.

Not really, no. The number of people killed or seriously injured by
bicycles is low enough that the generalisation is entirely valid.

It would be a pretty unlikely collision where swapping a bike for a
car would /reduce/ the level of danger.

To the occupant it would certainly reduce the level of danger. You can
drive a car head-on into a brick wall at 30mph and walk away.

At this point someone usually suggests replacing airbags with bayonets
to redress the balance.

Just zis Guy said:

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:52:52 +0100, Matt B
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Speed limits [...]
have criminalised millions who have caused no danger,

Um, no. One thing that you absolutely cannot say about motorists,
criminal or not, is that they have caused no danger.

Let me re-phrase what I said then... Speed limits have criminalised
millions of careful and less dangerous drivers, whilst condoning, even
encouraging, reckless and dangerous driving so long as it is within an
arbitrary speed limit + 10% + 2.

Quoted message said:

More people
have been killed in the last fifty years by road traffic collisions
than in all the wars in the same period.

For that assertion to have any relevance to this discussion, you need to
be able to say whether the majority of those collisions occurred in
places where there *no* speed limit was in force at the time, or if in
places where a speed limit was in force at the time, whether they were
at speeds above or below that limit.

--
Matt B

Just zis Guy said:

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:24:27 +0100, Matt B
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

While obviously a speeding cyclist poses less danger than a speeding
ton of metal,

Quoted message said:

That is a rather irresponsible generalisation. It may be true that a
car + motorist travelling at 21 mph has more kinetic energy than a bike
+ cyclist travelling at the same speed, but the level of danger depends
on many other factors.

Not really, no.

Umm, an interesting insight into your level of road safety
comprehension. The level of danger is a function, not only of the
amount of kinetic energy, but also of the risk of a collision occurring.
An inattentive cyclist, on an old and poorly maintained bike,
travelling at 21 mph, virtually silently, and close to the kerb, may
well present more danger to a pedestrian stepping off that kerb, than a
fully attentive motorist, in a modern well maintained car, travelling at
21 mph, several feet from the kerb, and generating the normal level of
wind, tyre and engine noise.

Quoted message said:

The number of people killed or seriously injured by
bicycles is low enough that the generalisation is entirely valid.

Compare like-with-like by looking at the rates (collisions per mile, or
collisions per hour), rather than the absolute numbers (there are orders
of magnitude differences between motor vehicle exposure and bicycle
exposure on the roads), and I think you'll be surprised just how
relatively dangerous bikes are, and just how relatively safe motor
vehicles are.

Quoted message said:

It would be a pretty unlikely collision where swapping a bike for a
car would /reduce/ the level of danger.

But as most of us realise, that is a red herring, because of all the
other factors involved.

If "speeding" alone caused more danger, then the simple measure of
increasing all speed limits to a level that guaranteed that no vehicle
could actually speed, would make the roads safer - at a stroke. Would
you put your money where your mouth is, and support /that/ as a road
safety measure?

--
Matt B

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 05:04:41 -0500, Ben C <[email hidden]> said
in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It would be a pretty unlikely collision where swapping a bike for a
car would /reduce/ the level of danger.

To the occupant it would certainly reduce the level of danger. You can
drive a car head-on into a brick wall at 30mph and walk away.

Just one of the many reasons why "safe" cars are more dangerous,
yes. But the question was of the danger posed, not the risk
experienced.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound