From: Adrian on 29 Jul 2010 09:45
Matt B <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:
>>> It's not safe to drive past a busy school at chucking-out time at 30
>>> mph (or even at 20 mph), yet it happens and is perfectly legal.
>> Umm, no, it isn't legal.
> As far as the speed limits are concerned it is.
"As far as the speed limits are concerned", driving a stolen car whilst
pissed and banned from driving is legal.
From: Matt B on 29 Jul 2010 09:49
On 29/07/2010 14:38, Chelsea Tractor Man wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2010 13:30:47 GMT, Adrian wrote:
>>> No, they are a compromise - and don't work. There are still 2000+
>>> fatalities on our roads each year.
>> Only around 10% of which have speed in excess of the limit as a (not even
>> the only) cause.
> you could argue that the speed limit has eliminated a lot of purely speed
> related accidents. You certainly cannot argue speed limits do not work
> because there are still accidents. Speed limits just tend to mitigate the
> effects, not the causes.
How? Given that they have little or no effect on traffic speeds.
Studies in the U.S. showed that speed limit reductions have little or no
effect on speeds, other than to increase them for many of the drivers
that would otherwise be driving below the new limit.
From: Adrian on 29 Jul 2010 09:48
Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:
>>> many people do need it
>> And yet we've all - including you - already agreed that the speed limit
>> may very well be considerably higher than a safe and appropriate speed,
>> and therefore the ability to judge that appropriate speed without
>> reference to the limit is a core competence for any driver.
> Unfortunatly many drivers do not possess that skill
Then how did they pass their driving test? Surely that's an argument for
increasing the level of skill of drivers, not relying on measures to
protect everybody from one relatively minor result of that incompetence?
> or even if they do, choose to ignore it.
Just like they ignore speed limits, y'mean? And yet fatalities from speed
above the limit are a small minority of all deaths...
>>> but my point was the speed limit *is* a safety measure.
>> I know it is. But you just don't seem to be able to support that point
>> with any rational and accurate arguments. You always come back to
>> "Because it is".
> utter nonsense, Iv'e given perfectly good reasons
You've given reasons which you think are "perfectly good" - yet every
single one turns out to be lame or false.
> and never once said "because its the law" or similar.
No, you just keep saying "because they're for safety" instead. Despite
they fact that even you admit they are at best "approximate".
From: Matt B on 29 Jul 2010 09:52
On 29/07/2010 14:45, Adrian wrote:
> Matt B<matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>>>> It's not safe to drive past a busy school at chucking-out time at 30
>>>> mph (or even at 20 mph), yet it happens and is perfectly legal.
>>> Umm, no, it isn't legal.
>> As far as the speed limits are concerned it is.
> "As far as the speed limits are concerned", driving a stolen car whilst
> pissed and banned from driving is legal.
Yes, but they weren't the subject of this thread either - the efficacy
of speed limits was though.
From: Matt B on 29 Jul 2010 10:07
On 29/07/2010 14:51, Chelsea Tractor Man wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:46:52 +0100, Matt B wrote:
>>> OK, so you are saying design in ways of slowing traffic, I have no problem
>>> with that. Why didnt you say so in the first place?
>> You would probably have dismissed the idea.
> not in the slightest
>> Now you realise it will work,
> I already knew, but its expensive
Better value though than something that doesn't work at all.
Look at the experiences from the introduction of 20 mph limit zones in
vast areas of Portsmouth and 20 mph limit zones in vast areas of Hull...
The ones in Portsmouth didn't make any difference at all to traffic
speeds or to accident levels. In Hull traffic calming was first
installed to slow traffic down, then when the speeds had dropped below
20 mph (and the accident numbers had dropped correspondingly), 20 mph
limits were added (and subsequently given the credit for achieving the
The speed limits brought exactly the same benefit to both places: none
That's why "20 mph zones" cannot be introduced now until the traffic
speeds have been reduced to less than 20 mph by "traffic calming".
The authorities continue to treat the general public as idiots, and fail
to admit the reality that limits _do_ _not_ _work_.