50 limit moves up agenda
21/04/09 08:48 Filed in: Blog
Laudably our politicians are keen to
reduce the number of accidents on our roads. The figures may be at
their lowest for 50 years, but any accident or fatality is one too
many.
However, as seems to happen all too often in politics, the result seems to be driven more by political expedient than by logic.
The proposal to drop the speed limit on single carriageway roads is contained in a Department for Transport consultation. The Scottish Government is working on its own separate proposals.
Thanks to Government statistics we know that exceeding speed limits is a factor in only 5% of accidents. We also know that “failure to look properly” cause SIX times as many accidents as exceeding speed limits.
So, if you were seeking to improve road safety what issue would you prioritise?
Seems like a simple logic question. Of course you would focus most effort on measures to mitigate the “failure to look properly”. You would do that by looking at ways to improve visibility (day running lights on all cars?) and to encourage drivers to take more care.
Where is the logic in heading off to introduce measures that:
I really fear that the 50 mph limit could actually make our roads worse. We all know that there will be many slower drivers who will welcome the justification to drive more slowly and will plant their cars, four-square, in the middle of the road at 45 mph.
I fear that the resulting frustration will undoubtedly cause accidents as the red mist descends and people attempt skin-of-the-teeth overtaking manoeuvres.
Are those politicians and legislators who support the 50 mph limit banking that these additional accidents will be less than the fraction of 5% that a lower limit might save?
However, as seems to happen all too often in politics, the result seems to be driven more by political expedient than by logic.
The proposal to drop the speed limit on single carriageway roads is contained in a Department for Transport consultation. The Scottish Government is working on its own separate proposals.
Thanks to Government statistics we know that exceeding speed limits is a factor in only 5% of accidents. We also know that “failure to look properly” cause SIX times as many accidents as exceeding speed limits.
So, if you were seeking to improve road safety what issue would you prioritise?
Seems like a simple logic question. Of course you would focus most effort on measures to mitigate the “failure to look properly”. You would do that by looking at ways to improve visibility (day running lights on all cars?) and to encourage drivers to take more care.
Where is the logic in heading off to introduce measures that:
- are demonstrably not a major cause of accidents?
- may well increase frustration and thereby trigger rash driving?
- encourage drivers to concentrate more on the speedometer than they do on observation (which, remember, is the cause of most accidents)?
I really fear that the 50 mph limit could actually make our roads worse. We all know that there will be many slower drivers who will welcome the justification to drive more slowly and will plant their cars, four-square, in the middle of the road at 45 mph.
I fear that the resulting frustration will undoubtedly cause accidents as the red mist descends and people attempt skin-of-the-teeth overtaking manoeuvres.
Are those politicians and legislators who support the 50 mph limit banking that these additional accidents will be less than the fraction of 5% that a lower limit might save?