'Hypocrisy' of speeding middle-class motorists

[L00b]

Any move to a higher limit or no limit at all ("cars can do it after all quite safely!") would require an analysis of German stats, I guess. I have read on SF the claim that the "Germans seem to manage OK ..." so I looked into the German stats with an open mind

<..insightful, but no need to take up room unnecessarily in this quote..>

So the conclusion from this "extensive" research is that 70 (ignored by many) is probably "safer" (better outcomes) than something higher (still ignored by many) and "safer" than a free-for-all.

It is a safe enough conclusion, however, it ignores behavioural/societal differences which (IHMO, having lived and driven extensively in Germany) make driving in Germany a very different proposition to driving in the UK (whether on m'ways or elsewhere).

 

Germans 'know' how to drive on motorways (compulsory learning part of license, same as many other EU countries) and you will rarely ever see one speeding in the 55% of m'ways, A or B roads that are speed-limited (regimented as Germans are, and the Polizei can prove really unfriendly). They are generally well aware of stopping distances, safety intervals, speed differentials relative to other cars in front/behind. "Situationally aware" is the expression, I believe.

 

Car maintenance standards are generally higher across the spectrum, and risks associated with accidents (in terms of insurance liability and amounts, penalties, etc....so, personal consequences for the party at fault) are much worse compared to the UK. A good deal of the difference can be found/explained by a Civil Law (DE) vs Common Law (UK) comparison.

 

All that, i.e. a balance of coercion (mostly) and permissions (no speed limit in certain areas...only those which are rarely if ever congested/with a much lesser traffic density), contributes to a driving culture which is much more exacting, preventive and 'foresighting' than in the UK.

 

Still in the dual context of country comparison and the thread topic, automatic (Gatso-like) cameras have been installed in France for the last 2 or 3 years only. Only on m'ways and only in very few places, i.e. those with a consistently huge traffic density (>50.000 vehicles per day). The A31 in the North East can get up to, and even over, 105.000 vehicles per day (!) in the holiday season (i.e. now), and that's got 3 cameras over a 15 mile stretch. Very little bunching up, since all the locals toe the line and cruise along at the limit in the slow/median lanes, it's only Dutch/Belgian/German tourists in the overtaking lane who speed/break-after-getting-flashed/get done and pay for the privilege

[jeppers]

Welcome indeed to the fold. This thread has potential!

 

<<snipped loads of good stuff>>

 

Speed limits are, indeed, arbitrary.

The fact that we have 70 on m/w's is historical but it has been copied around Europe and we are probably stuck with it. Any move to a higher limit or no limit at all ("cars can do it after all quite safely!") would require an analysis of German stats, I guess. I have read on SF the claim that the "Germans seem to manage OK ..." so I looked into the German stats with an open mind - I truthfully have no axe to grind having been driven in Germany at 127mph (great fun [vaguely] but rather scary.)

So, scratching just the surface of huge volume of German crash, injury, fatality stats I can report:

Germany has 12000 km of Autobahn. 55% of this has a limit imposed of some sort. So 45% of their motorway kilometers are unlimited. In my mind, if I was suggesting we should go down the same route as the Germans, I would hope and expect to see that +/- 45% (or less?) of the fatalities happening on these unlimited stretches. The actual figure for 2008 was 73% (363 of the 495 deaths) with the equivalent figure for serious injuries 68%. There will have been many other factors behind these stats than just speed but the basic rules of probability and physics apply. Sooner or later the fallible human will get it wrong and the higher speeds and the larger differentials of speeds on these roads conspire to guarantee poorer outcomes.

 

So the conclusion from this "extensive" research is that 70 (ignored by many) is probably "safer" (better outcomes) than something higher (still ignored by many) and "safer" than a free-for-all.

 

Thanks for the welcome, and refreshing to hear such a reasoned and intelligent response after some of the previous comments I've read...

 

Your look at the German autobahn figures are very interesting indeed, and if I'm honest, I would vehemently oppose any measures for the UK to go down the unlimited speeds route. I don't believe that the driving population here in the UK is of a standard high enough to drive safely and consistently so, at the sort of speeds that vehicles are capable of today - and I count myself in this group too! However I do think that 70, in the right circumstances is too low, and it could go as high as 85-90 quite easily on a clear, dry day.

 

When you were looking at the German figures, do they include or distinguish between German and foreign drivers? My thinking is that the prime reason for the proportion of accidents is the foreign driver going over for a bit of an unrestricted blat. The correlation between an inexperienced driver, unfamiliar roads and speeds anywhere north of 100mph would, in my mind at least, account for the imbalance.

 

My only means of substantiating my thoughts is if I look at the only other place round here where roads are unrestricted - the Isle of Man. Having family over there, they tell me that the government is slowly reducing the number of unrestricted roads on the island, predominately because of tourists to the island using the roads as a racetrack.

 

Edited to say, looks like LOOb and I are on the same page...

[alchresearch]

Your look at the German autobahn figures are very interesting indeed, and if I'm honest, I would vehemently oppose any measures for the UK to go down the unlimited speeds route. I don't believe that the driving population here in the UK is of a standard high enough to drive safely and consistently so, at the sort of speeds that vehicles are capable of today - and I count myself in this group too! However I do think that 70, in the right circumstances is too low, and it could go as high as 85-90 quite easily on a clear, dry day.

 

I'm also led to believe that if you cause an accident in Germany because of speeding or driving without due care and attention, you're liable for all the costs, and not your insurer.

 

The Germans are just a more mature, responsible breed of people.

 

When the day comes that there are zero crashes on the motorway in a day, then we can start to review the limits. But as long as people drive too fast and too close, nothing will ever change, and that's a damn shame.

 

I've driven to work today on the motorway in heavy rain, and reduced my speed accordingly. Sadly, the repmobiles continued to belt along at 70mph+ in the outside lane without any lights or appropriate distance from the car in front.

[spindrift]

We have some of the safest roads in the world, .

 

Again, this is untrue, we have one of the worst child casualty rates in Europe, the deaths and injuries young people suffer on the roads in the UK is a national disgrace.

 

You're talking rubbish.

[spindrift]

The chances of being killed on the roads for 10-14 year olds doubled between 1955 and 1999. What it boils down to is this: the roads appear to be getting safer, simply because they are becoming more dangerous.

 

This is borne out by casualty rates that are not declining at the same rate for all road users. Pedestrian, cyclist and motorcyclist casualties are not declining as fast as car user casualties.

 

 

Child pedestrian casualty rates in Britain are among the worst in Europe.

 

 

http://roadtrafficaccidents.net/articles/581/Common-myths-in-'road-safety'

[alchresearch]

<awaits someone to come on and blame the children and say "the roads are for cars">

[sharrowman]

When i walk down the road with my handgun in it's holster I pose no threat to passers-by.

I should face no legal repercussions for carrying my handgun because I do no harm with it.

Yes, handguns do harm others now and again, but not mine, I know how to use a handgun.

Those that use them for killing, they just don't know what to do with one.

It is an infringement of my civil liberties and my rights as a total dude that my handgun carrying is seen as dangerous, selfish, ignorant, liberal, do-gooding scoundrels.

[Wildcat]

The independent has an interesting article today on oxfordshire's experience in the 5 days after they said they would on longer be using the speed cameras. What they found is that the number of people speeding increased 20%. this should be worrying for all of us it increases danger for other road users whether they are cyclists, pedestrians or other motor drivers

[spindrift]

When the county council turned off all its Gatso cameras, motorists quickly returned to law-breaking ways, reports Mark Hughes

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/motoring-news/speeding-drivers-revel-in-oxfords-great-switchoff-2050125.html

 

Remove the punishment and criminals revert to their law breaking.

 

This is a terrible, reckless experiment.

[Dogs Of War]

When the county council turned off all its Gatso cameras, motorists quickly returned to law-breaking ways, reports Mark Hughes

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/motoring-news/speeding-drivers-revel-in-oxfords-great-switchoff-2050125.html

 

Remove the punishment and criminals revert to their law breaking.

 

This is a terrible, reckless experiment.

 

Whats the view like up there on the moral high ground ?

 

So your so perfect you have never strayed a couple of miles over the speed limit .