[PR] RSA - Survey of Free Speed 2006

Victor

Survey of Free Speed 2006 Urban and Rural

seamus

Two conclusions from that:

1. Absolute proof that breaking the speed limit does not cause accidents. Despite an overall increase in speed in urban areas through the two years, road deaths dropped by 7%
2. Speed limits are too low in many urban areas with more than 80% of drivers breaking the 50km/h limit. A limit of 60km/h (a real increase of only 6mph) would have a dramatic effect on compliance.

cc

seamus wrote: »

Two conclusions from that:

1. Absolute proof that breaking the speed limit does not cause accidents. Despite an overall increase in speed in urban areas through the two years, road deaths dropped by 7%
2. Speed limits are too low in many urban areas with more than 80% of drivers breaking the 50km/h limit. A limit of 60km/h (a real increase of only 6mph) would have a dramatic effect on compliance.

speed indeed may not contibute in as many vehicle accidents as widley reported, but when it comes to pedestrian safety there is no justification in raising speed limits in built up areas.

Wibbler

seamus wrote: »

Two conclusions from that:

1. Absolute proof that breaking the speed limit does not cause accidents. Despite an overall increase in speed in urban areas through the two years, road deaths dropped by 7%
2. Speed limits are too low in many urban areas with more than 80% of drivers breaking the 50km/h limit. A limit of 60km/h (a real increase of only 6mph) would have a dramatic effect on compliance.

Increasing the limits to improve compliance misses the point of the speed limits in the first place.

To quote from http://www.science.org.au/nova/058/058key.htm

"Once a pedestrian has been hit by a car, the probability of serious injury or death depends strongly on the impact speed. Reducing the impact speed from 60 to 50 kilometres/hour almost halves the likelihood of death, but has relatively little influence on the likelihood of injury, which remains close to 100 per cent. Reducing the speed to 40 kilometres/hour, as in school zones, reduces the likelihood of death by a factor of 4 compared with 60 kilometres/hour, and of course the likelihood of an impact is also dramatically reduced."

The same principles apply in vehicle/vehicle and vehicle/obstacle accidents: The faster you go, the greater the amount of kinetic energy that must be dissipated as the vehicle comes to a stop. Kinetic energy increases with the square of the speed. So a car traveling at 60km/h has nearly 50% more kinetic energy to dissipate in a collision than the same car doing 50km/h.

Niall1234

A lot of 50kph speed limits are being applied in the wrong areas.

- How is 50kph sensible from Silversprings Hotel all the way in by the quay in cork. There's no douse there at all. Might aswell be a wide rural road.
- Glouthaune on the old Midleton road. Its incredible wide with very few houses.

These are just two cases where 60kph limits should be applied.

Eventhough this report shows otherwise, some guy from the RSA was on today FM today trying to tell to "slow down". It was his only message regarding road safety from what I could tell.


Parts of that survey look questionable though. Why is it that average speed for a car on a dual carriageway is only 90kph yet it is 95 kph on a National Primary. This makes no sense. You rarely if see anyone driving at 90 on a dual carriageway ?

Zoney

Niall1234:

What about HGVs etc. at 80km/h even on DC? Hence an even lower average speed on DC because there's probably a higher % of HGVs on those more major parts of routes than other national routes.

Niall1234

Zoney wrote: »

Niall1234:

What about HGVs etc. at 80km/h even on DC? Hence an even lower average speed on DC because there's probably a higher % of HGVs on those more major parts of routes than other national routes.

No, the figures I post are related to cars only. I've hardly ever seen a person drive at 90kph on a DC.

Ham'nd'egger

Niall1234 wrote: »

No, the figures I post are related to cars only. I've hardly ever seen a person drive at 90kph on a DC.

Niall, not all DC will have 100KM speed limits. High volumes of traffic and lower speed limits in certain areas will bring it down, as will congestion and those who are happy to drive below speed limits. If anything, the 90KM is a high average figure overall.

OTK

seamus wrote: »

1. Absolute proof that breaking the speed limit does not cause accidents. Despite an overall increase in speed in urban areas through the two years, road deaths dropped by 7%

Fatal accidents have a number of variable causes. Amongst them are education, compliance with drink driving laws, car and road engineering. A negative correlation between one of these causes and the number of accidents proves nothing.

2. Speed limits are too low in many urban areas with more than 80% of drivers breaking the 50km/h limit. A limit of 60km/h (a real increase of only 6mph) would have a dramatic effect on compliance.

Do you not watch TV?

http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/campaigns/slowdown/slowdown.htm

People break urban limits because the limits are not enforced.

Niall1234

OTK wrote: »

Fatal accidents have a number of variable causes. Amongst them are education, compliance with drink driving laws, car and road engineering. A negative correlation between one of these causes and the number of accidents proves nothing.

Do you not watch TV?

http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/campaigns/slowdown/slowdown.htm

People break urban limits because the limits are not enforced.

I think the point is that 50kph are placed in some ludicrous locations for no reason. Lower glanmire road between water street and the skew bridge being 50kph is a joke.

Hamndegger wrote: »

Niall, not all DC will have 100KM speed limits. High volumes of traffic and lower speed limits in certain areas will bring it down, as will congestion and those who are happy to drive below speed limits. If anything, the 90KM is a high average figure overall.

stat is for DCs with 100kph limit.

E92

Many of the speed limits are too low in this country, no wonder people ignore them.

People are a lot less stupid than I had thought they were clearly.

The survey shows that the vast majority of people have a common sense approach when it comes to speed evidently.

SeanW

Exactly. Ever since the changeover to metric speed limits, and more importantly the abolition of the General Speed Limit, speed limits nationwide have been going down, down and down again, and some of the new ones just don't make any sense whatsoever.

Even around Longford town I can think of numerous examples of roads where the speed limits are so insane (like a mile or two of wide road with nothing but a few sparse ribbon developments and a 50k limit) that if you actually obey them, you're going to cause more danger as a rolling roadblock than you avoid by going slow. Guess where the speed traps are? IrishSpeedTraps.com shows a mobile speed trap sighted occasionally one of the most extreme example of stupid speed limits in the history of speed-limiting.

Free speeds exceeding the speed limit may be a sign of dangerous driving. It may also mean that a speed limit doesn't make sense.

Victor

All theses figures were in the order of 80-90% only a few years ago.

Niall1234 wrote: »

I think the point is that 50kph are placed in some ludicrous locations for no reason. Lower glanmire road between water street and the skew bridge being 50kph is a joke.

Isn't 'Skew Bridge' a hint?

Niall1234

Victor wrote: »

All theses figures were in the order of 80-90% only a few years ago. Isn't 'Skew Bridge' a hint?

Ah Victor, that's nonsense and you know it. There are plenty of skew bridges on rural roads which don't require lowered limits of 50kph for the 100m or so around the bridge. If anything, the ones on the rural roads (which generally don't have a reduced limit) are more dangerous due to the standard driving limit on those roads.

If a driver can't figure out that they have to slow down for a skew bridge, then they shouldn't be driving.

Victor

Niall1234 wrote: »

If a driver can't figure out that they have to slow down for a skew bridge, then they shouldn't be driving.

Sure, but until we can get all of them off the road, I'm not willing to further endanger the 200+ people on a train that they might hit.

SeanW

If a driver can't figure out that they have to slow down for a skew bridge, then they shouldn't be driving.

Precisely. Case in point, the Longford-Granard road about 2 miles outside the town, the main road goes around a sharp 90 degree bend and other roads join it there. Kind of a weird staggered crossroads. It has a 50k speed limit for the 100 metres around it. Now, of course everyone slows down approaching the junction (because if you didn't, you'd crash) but noone waits until they get to the next (80) sign before they return to cruising speed. Noone. I used to pedantically wait to cross the 80k sign before speeding up when I was learning to drive, but after being overtaken for the 100th time by a driver who probably thought I was your garden variety slowpoke, I got the message.

If there is a hazard, properly signposted, you slow down. End of story. Anyone who doesn't know this shouldn't be driving. Putting a stupid speed limit for 100+M around every hazard only damages even further the credibility of the speed limit system.

E92

Niall1234 wrote: »

If a driver can't figure out that they have to slow down for a skew bridge, then they shouldn't be driving.

+1. This is what's called common sense i.e. using your brain.

But the sticking to the speed limit no matter what and "speeding is evil" do gooder types seem to oblivious to the fact that common sense is one of the things 99.9% of us have.

You don't need a speed limit to tell you to slow down at a skew bridge, it's so bloody obvious it's amazing that people could think otherwise.

Apart from that section, 50 km/h is ridiculously low, and everyone knows it, which is why both before and after, everyone goes at 70-80 down that road when traffic conditions permit.

cyclopath2001

E92 wrote: »

But the sticking to the speed limit no matter what and "speeding is evil" do gooder types seem to oblivious to the fact that common sense is one of the things 99.9% of us have.

While many may possess it, the statistics show that not everyone uses it. Certainly not 99.9%. And this may be a selfish form of common sense. I don't see it used much at box junctions, while stopping cars in cycle lanes, failing to indicate, or when cars stop on pedestrian crossings.

Regulations don't just exist for safety reasons, there are social reasons too. Many people are blind to the needs of others.

SeanW

SeanW wrote: »

Precisely. Case in point, the Longford-Granard road about 2 miles outside the town, the main road goes around a sharp 90 degree bend and other roads join it there. Kind of a weird staggered crossroads. It has a 50k speed limit for the 100 metres around it. Now, of course everyone slows down approaching the junction (because if you didn't, you'd crash) but noone waits until they get to the next (80) sign before they return to cruising speed. Noone. I used to pedantically wait to cross the 80k sign before speeding up when I was learning to drive, but after being overtaken for the 100th time by a driver who probably thought I was your garden variety slowpoke, I got the message.

It would make more sense it the "end of reduced speed limit" sign was immediately after the hazard rather than at the same point as the "slow down you are approaching a hazzard" sign is for oncoming traffic.

It does mean of course that certain stretches of road would have different limits in each direction, but it would reflect what goes on in the real world.

trellheim

What if it was peeing with rain and dead of night .... and you didn't know the skew bridge is there

SeanW

It should be signposted as a hazard, with a SLOW AHEAD warning. If you didn't see the hazard and slow-ahead warnings, you're not going to see the 50k speed limit sign.

In addition, some of the hazards, such as the one I mentioned earlier, require you to slow down to below 50kph. So if the purpose of the reduced limit is to warn motorists of the danger, should the CC lower it yet again to 30kph (and have an even more ridiculous situation where the authorities, with a straight face, expect motorists to stay at 30kph for 100 or so metres after clearing the hazard? Maybe add a few guards to collect revenue (oops, forgot "enhance road safety") by catching ... well ... just about everyone who uses the road?

Seems to me that a set of appropriate warning signs would work better - and keep what remains of the credibility of the speed limit system.