Bushey Road A298 20mph limit?!

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15744
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Bushey Road A298 20mph limit?!

Post by Chris Bertram »

Bryn666 wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 13:12
ajuk wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 13:02
Chris Bertram wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:39 I know they no longer have to authorise speed limit changes, but do the DTp not have reserve powers to "call in" unreasonable changes in limit? Other government departments seem to "call in" e.g. planning decisions for review, why not mass speed limit orders?

I'd actually like to see a "Chief Constable's veto" available, to be wielded against stupid limit changes that the police see no benefit from and would not intend to enforce. As the people responsible for enforcing good behaviour on the roads, their opinion ought to be taken seriously, but one hears time and time again that it is ignored - time to give them some teeth.
I did a FOI request to the DfT asking if they have any ability to punish a council or an individuals at a council if, as product of ignoring their guidelines in setting speed limits, it lead to an increase in accident or deaths?
The short answer was no, the council can answer to "the electorate" which to me is like saying no one can be held responsible.

There are multiple issues that people vote on and under FPtP voting you could change your vote but still have little say on who you elect.
100s or thousands of people could vote differently to remove some councillors but even then do we know for sure why that person lost there seat.
I wrote to my MP on the issue stating that my concern is that councils don't have to give data in consultations as to what drop they expect to see in actual traffic speeds and levels of compliance and people are being mislead into believing a 10mph drop in speed limit = 10mph drop in speeds, also that councils have no one to answer too if they inadvertently make a road more dangerous by setting speed limits wrongly, either too low or too high, it was forwarded to someone at the DfT and I got a similar response.
Councils answer to ThE eLeCtOrAtE.
Basically, they explained back to me in different wording what I wrote to them saying I thought the problem was, it was pure bulverism.
Circular 1/93 came about because local councils were complaining their electorates wanted speed limits lowering and they couldn't do it. Contrary to what the same six white men on SABRE say, the vast majority of British people do not want fast roads outside their front door.

You either want more local decision making or you don't. You can't have it both ways where central government is told to bugger off when they're doing stuff you dislike and told to come back when the council is doing stuff you don't like instead.

That said this road is clearly a 30 to any engineer with sense, not a 20.
But these same people want business to be done at a decent speed - they want their courier deliveries on time, they want their Just Eat order to arrive still hot, hell, they might even want to get somewhere themselves in reasonable time. You can't have it both ways. And in any case, as Alex says, absurdly low speed limits will, all other things being equal, be ignored so the traffic continues at much the same speed as before. Maybe the Met puts some effort into enforcing 20 limits, but West Midlands police rarely if ever do. I think I once heard of the hairdryer coming out to play on a nearby road where there is a 20 limit and a long downhill stretch on a Sunday morning, but they used to pull the same trick there when it was a 30. What is a "fast road", anyway? A 30 limit? Hardly. A 40 limit? Those tend to be on wider arterial roads where it makes sense to encourage trunk traffic to use it. Birmingham has, unfortunately, set about removing 40 limits from such roads in recent years, so the wide, dualled streches of A38 Bristol Road with houses set well back and good sightlines now have the same limit as the bits that pass through the urban centres. But "slower is safer" is all that matters, right?
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
User avatar
ajuk
Member
Posts: 929
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 23:59
Location: Bristol

Re: Bushey Road A298 20mph limit?!

Post by ajuk »

Chris Bertram wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 18:56
Bryn666 wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 13:12
ajuk wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 13:02

I did a FOI request to the DfT asking if they have any ability to punish a council or an individuals at a council if, as product of ignoring their guidelines in setting speed limits, it lead to an increase in accident or deaths?
The short answer was no, the council can answer to "the electorate" which to me is like saying no one can be held responsible.

There are multiple issues that people vote on and under FPtP voting you could change your vote but still have little say on who you elect.
100s or thousands of people could vote differently to remove some councillors but even then do we know for sure why that person lost there seat.
I wrote to my MP on the issue stating that my concern is that councils don't have to give data in consultations as to what drop they expect to see in actual traffic speeds and levels of compliance and people are being mislead into believing a 10mph drop in speed limit = 10mph drop in speeds, also that councils have no one to answer too if they inadvertently make a road more dangerous by setting speed limits wrongly, either too low or too high, it was forwarded to someone at the DfT and I got a similar response.
Councils answer to ThE eLeCtOrAtE.
Basically, they explained back to me in different wording what I wrote to them saying I thought the problem was, it was pure bulverism.
Circular 1/93 came about because local councils were complaining their electorates wanted speed limits lowering and they couldn't do it. Contrary to what the same six white men on SABRE say, the vast majority of British people do not want fast roads outside their front door.

You either want more local decision making or you don't. You can't have it both ways where central government is told to bugger off when they're doing stuff you dislike and told to come back when the council is doing stuff you don't like instead.

That said this road is clearly a 30 to any engineer with sense, not a 20.
But these same people want business to be done at a decent speed - they want their courier deliveries on time, they want their Just Eat order to arrive still hot, hell, they might even want to get somewhere themselves in reasonable time. You can't have it both ways. And in any case, as Alex says, absurdly low speed limits will, all other things being equal, be ignored so the traffic continues at much the same speed as before. Maybe the Met puts some effort into enforcing 20 limits, but West Midlands police rarely if ever do. I think I once heard of the hairdryer coming out to play on a nearby road where there is a 20 limit and a long downhill stretch on a Sunday morning, but they used to pull the same trick there when it was a 30. What is a "fast road", anyway? A 30 limit? Hardly. A 40 limit? Those tend to be on wider arterial roads where it makes sense to encourage trunk traffic to use it. Birmingham has, unfortunately, set about removing 40 limits from such roads in recent years, so the wide, dualled streches of A38 Bristol Road with houses set well back and good sightlines now have the same limit as the bits that pass through the urban centres. But "slower is safer" is all that matters, right?
Not sure what the colour of someone's skin has to do with anything. People might not want to live with a fast road outside their door but if they have chosen to live on or near a road designed for a 40mph speed limit (as I have, Queen's Road in Nailsea) I could campaign to have the speed limit dropped to 30 but it would still be on a road engineered for a 40 limit only lacking the repeaters to warn people like my niece of the road danger, but likely with close to identical average speed.

I've seen the data from South Gloucestershire that showed so many roads with 40 limits actually had lower average speeds than many roads that now have 30 limits and yet the council have this data available to them and they still go after the 40 limits that's what boils my ****. There was even one road with a 50 limit had a lower average speed than a 30 limit road, that's the sheer level it's the road standard that dictates actual traffic speeds not speed limits.
Confronting the council with this data is like holding up a black piece of paper only for them to say "See, told you it was white".
User avatar
Barkstar
Member
Posts: 2604
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 16:32

Re: Bushey Road A298 20mph limit?!

Post by Barkstar »

someone wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 22:53 Quoted from the local Council:
Do Nothing. This, however, would be contrary to the Council’s aspirations of a lower speed limit throughout the borough thereby bringing about a change in driver behaviour.....
The objective is to change behaviour – that is to say to encourage drivers to travel at a consistent lower speed not just along specific roads but throughout the borough and from borough to borough.
In it's way this bit is quite scary. The mind set is there is no option to do nothing. And changing the speed limit isn't encouraging a change behaviour, it is forcing it, which ain't the same.

Chris Bertram wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:39 I'd actually like to see a "Chief Constable's veto" available, to be wielded against stupid limit changes that the police see no benefit from and would not intend to enforce. As the people responsible for enforcing good behaviour on the roads, their opinion ought to be taken seriously, but one hears time and time again that it is ignored - time to give them some teeth.
The Derbyshire Police had serious misgivings about the introduction of blanket 50mph limits across the Peak District and intimated they'd do little to enforce it. The council went ahead anyway.
Bryn666 wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 13:12
Circular 1/93 came about because local councils were complaining their electorates wanted speed limits lowering and they couldn't do it. Contrary to what the same six white men on SABRE say, the vast majority of British people do not want fast roads outside their front door.

You either want more local decision making or you don't. You can't have it both ways where central government is told to bugger off when they're doing stuff you dislike and told to come back when the council is doing stuff you don't like instead.

That said this road is clearly a 30 to any engineer with sense, not a 20.
Far to many decisions about how our local day to day lives are controlled is shrouded in secrecy or getting the information is made difficult. If the professionals best equipped to comment on a change to a speed limit are ignored it should have to be justified and for all to see. We shouldn't need FOI requests to get all the info we need for these sort of things.
someone
Member
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:46
Location: London

Re: Bushey Road A298 20mph limit?!

Post by someone »

Having a cuppa wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 20:26 I'm not sure why, but Merton has been making rather irrational decisions regarding speed limits lately. On most of the A216, a road which meets with the A23 in Streatham, the speed limit has been reduced from 30 miles per hour to 20 despite having average lane width, good distance between opposing lanes, and designated parking spots.
All of the A216 (the other end to the A296 on my route to the A3) is 20 mph now, which is shared by three borough. Lambeth introduced a blanket 20 mph policy several years ago with the exception of boundary roads shared with another borough and their section of the A216. Then Wandsworth introduced a 20 mph policy but retaining 30 mph limit on A- and B-roads. Which, more-or-less, is a sensible policy.

But as well as Merton dropping the limit on their half of the A216, Lambeth also removed their exception. Then Wandsworth reduced it for the remainder, presumably due to being sandwiched between two 20 mph sections, and it being a lower quality section than the southern half in Merton.

That said, I have not been on the B242 Bedford Hill since the lockdown, but I believe that has also been dropped to 20 mph, so I am not sure if they have changed their policy.
Barkstar wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 11:36And changing the speed limit isn't encouraging a change behaviour, it is forcing it, which ain't the same.
I have been confused at times by people driving at 20 mph on roads that have not changed, so it definitely seems o be effecting behaviour. Particularly the A3220 red route from the A3 to Battersea Bridge.
User avatar
ajuk
Member
Posts: 929
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 23:59
Location: Bristol

Re: Bushey Road A298 20mph limit?!

Post by ajuk »

I think saying it will change behaviour shows a lack of understanding as to how we got the 30mph speed limit. Speed limits don't dictate traffic speeds, you measure the speed most people drive at to see what is normal driver behaviour and base the speed limit on that, this method is quite well established and uncontroversial.
Saying people need to time to "get used to it" shows a lack of understanding as to how speed limits work, if the limit doesn't match the road as wrong as it is, is as wrong as it ever will be.
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: Bushey Road A298 20mph limit?!

Post by RichardA35 »

ajuk wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 00:43 I think saying it will change behaviour shows a lack of understanding as to how we got the 30mph speed limit. Speed limits don't dictate traffic speeds, you measure the speed most people drive at to see what is normal driver behaviour and base the speed limit on that, this method is quite well established and uncontroversial.
Saying people need to time to "get used to it" shows a lack of understanding as to how speed limits work, if the limit doesn't match the road as wrong as it is, is as wrong as it ever will be.
The entity in the whole process of driving that dictates the speed of a vehicle is the driver. There is no hidden force making a vehicle travel at a speed different to that imposed by the driver.
If society (expressed as the highway authority, an executive arm of a democratically elected body), through properly executed orders, requires that traffic should not exceed a given speed, the key reason for that not to happen is driver behaviour, by drivers who have complete control over the vehicle to make it proceed within or without the limit.
Normal driver behaviour should be to conform to societal norms.
Why should drivers be excused compliance with legal orders?
User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15744
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Bushey Road A298 20mph limit?!

Post by Chris Bertram »

RichardA35 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 11:21
ajuk wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 00:43 I think saying it will change behaviour shows a lack of understanding as to how we got the 30mph speed limit. Speed limits don't dictate traffic speeds, you measure the speed most people drive at to see what is normal driver behaviour and base the speed limit on that, this method is quite well established and uncontroversial.
Saying people need to time to "get used to it" shows a lack of understanding as to how speed limits work, if the limit doesn't match the road as wrong as it is, is as wrong as it ever will be.
The entity in the whole process of driving that dictates the speed of a vehicle is the driver. There is no hidden force making a vehicle travel at a speed different to that imposed by the driver.
If society (expressed as the highway authority, an executive arm of a democratically elected body), through properly executed orders, requires that traffic should not exceed a given speed, the key reason for that not to happen is driver behaviour, by drivers who have complete control over the vehicle to make it proceed within or without the limit.
Normal driver behaviour should be to conform to societal norms.
Why should drivers be excused compliance with legal orders?
The problem arises when legal orders conflict with societal norms. All that widely-tolerated weed smoking? That's against legal orders too. It's only in the area of driving and exceeding a posted limit that I ever hear "why can't they just obey the law?", and what Alex has posted is a pretty reasonably explanation of why. I've reported this before, but when I observe the patrol cars of the West Midlands' finest treating 20 limits on important through roads as though they don't exist, I take that as a cue that they don't agree with the reasons that they have been imposed, and as they're the ones who'll give me a ticket and have to deal with the aftermath of collisions, they will have reasons for that.
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
User avatar
FosseWay
Assistant Site Manager
Posts: 19621
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:26
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: Bushey Road A298 20mph limit?!

Post by FosseWay »

RichardA35 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 11:21 If society (expressed as the highway authority, an executive arm of a democratically elected body), through properly executed orders, requires that traffic should not exceed a given speed...
In my view, that on its own is not enough to legitimise a legal requirement (whether a speed limit or anything else). You have to establish that there is a problem that society feels it is necessary to solve, you have to establish that your chosen solution solves the problem in the most effective way, and you have to establish that there aren't side effects that are as bad or worse than the problem.

So, in the case of speed limits, it's not good enough for the executive arm of a democratically elected body, or even the elected representatives themselves, simply to impose whatever arbitrary limits they like simply on the justification that a majority of the democratically elected representatives supported it. Most countries have constitutions that protect certain fundamental human rights against the possibility that a specific group of elected representatives may vote for a measure that infringes those rights while (presumably) dealing with some other problem. The most obvious example in a modern, western, democratic context is the death penalty. At various points, legislators in various countries when faced with serial killers or terrorists will have been tempted to enact legislation to enable people like Fred West or Anders Behring Breivik to be executed, because in isolation it's not especially difficult to argue that the world would be better off if those people were dead. But constitutions, and supranational conventions like the ECHR and various UN charters, are specifically intended to ensure the bigger picture is seen.

Obviously, whether or not there's a 20 limit on Little Snoring High Street is very small beer compared to the death penalty, but the principle is the same. Enacting restrictions that inconvenience people for no good reason, or that cause disproportionate inconvenience for the benefit gained should be legally prohibited. Moreover, it is unreasonable to open someone up to prosecution for an offence where there is no obvious victim. The obvious way to avoid either in this context is to present a statistically watertight case that as a general rule over the road in question, reducing the limit will have a marked effect on KSIs (or some other issue you want to solve), and that reducing the speed limit is the most effective way of achieving that. If you can't demonstrate that there's a problem, that reducing speed will solve it, and that reducing speed is the best way of solving it, you've no business creating additional restrictions for your electorate.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Bushey Road A298 20mph limit?!

Post by Bryn666 »

To take the weed example - put simply, does smoking weed in your bedroom kill 1,800 people a year?

I know which I'd rather legalise, and speeding in urban areas isn't it. Societal norms might like speeding in urban areas, but it doesn't make it right. I refer to what I've said elsewhere - just because it's popular doesn't make it acceptable. Racism is popular, for example.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15744
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Bushey Road A298 20mph limit?!

Post by Chris Bertram »

FosseWay wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 11:48
RichardA35 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 11:21 If society (expressed as the highway authority, an executive arm of a democratically elected body), through properly executed orders, requires that traffic should not exceed a given speed...
In my view, that on its own is not enough to legitimise a legal requirement (whether a speed limit or anything else). You have to establish that there is a problem that society feels it is necessary to solve, you have to establish that your chosen solution solves the problem in the most effective way, and you have to establish that there aren't side effects that are as bad or worse than the problem.

So, in the case of speed limits, it's not good enough for the executive arm of a democratically elected body, or even the elected representatives themselves, simply to impose whatever arbitrary limits they like simply on the justification that a majority of the democratically elected representatives supported it. Most countries have constitutions that protect certain fundamental human rights against the possibility that a specific group of elected representatives may vote for a measure that infringes those rights while (presumably) dealing with some other problem. The most obvious example in a modern, western, democratic context is the death penalty. At various points, legislators in various countries when faced with serial killers or terrorists will have been tempted to enact legislation to enable people like Fred West or Anders Behring Breivik to be executed, because in isolation it's not especially difficult to argue that the world would be better off if those people were dead. But constitutions, and supranational conventions like the ECHR and various UN charters, are specifically intended to ensure the bigger picture is seen.

Obviously, whether or not there's a 20 limit on Little Snoring High Street is very small beer compared to the death penalty, but the principle is the same. Enacting restrictions that inconvenience people for no good reason, or that cause disproportionate inconvenience for the benefit gained should be legally prohibited. Moreover, it is unreasonable to open someone up to prosecution for an offence where there is no obvious victim. The obvious way to avoid either in this context is to present a statistically watertight case that as a general rule over the road in question, reducing the limit will have a marked effect on KSIs (or some other issue you want to solve), and that reducing the speed limit is the most effective way of achieving that. If you can't demonstrate that there's a problem, that reducing speed will solve it, and that reducing speed is the best way of solving it, you've no business creating additional restrictions for your electorate.
Quoted to express agreement. The "evidence" for the benefits of 20 limits, such as exists, has been shown time and time again to be very sketchy indeed, and the constant parroting of "Slower is safer", presumably based on the old saw of "If you hit me at 40 ..." and so on indicates to me that the reasons for them are now ideological rather than practical. If this were not the case, we would see 20 limits applied very selectively indeed, rather than spread out like a blanket on large areas where many of the roads are not purely "residential" side streets but have a strategic function in terms of connecting neighbourhoods.
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
User avatar
ajuk
Member
Posts: 929
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 23:59
Location: Bristol

Re: Bushey Road A298 20mph limit?!

Post by ajuk »

RichardA35 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 11:21
ajuk wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 00:43 I think saying it will change behaviour shows a lack of understanding as to how we got the 30mph speed limit. Speed limits don't dictate traffic speeds, you measure the speed most people drive at to see what is normal driver behaviour and base the speed limit on that, this method is quite well established and uncontroversial.
Saying people need to time to "get used to it" shows a lack of understanding as to how speed limits work, if the limit doesn't match the road as wrong as it is, is as wrong as it ever will be.
The entity in the whole process of driving that dictates the speed of a vehicle is the driver. There is no hidden force making a vehicle travel at a speed different to that imposed by the driver.
If society (expressed as the highway authority, an executive arm of a democratically elected body), through properly executed orders, requires that traffic should not exceed a given speed, the key reason for that not to happen is driver behaviour, by drivers who have complete control over the vehicle to make it proceed within or without the limit.
Normal driver behaviour should be to conform to societal norms.
Why should drivers be excused compliance with legal orders?

You're talking about speed limits as if they're a form of traffic calming there to generally dictate traffic speed. The fact that people assume that's how they work to me is a problem, I used to make that assumption myself, before I'd learned about concepts such as the 85th percentile speeds.
There is some evidence that setting a speed limit slightly below engineering recommendations may improve safety. They're mainly there to single out the behaviour of the small number of drivers who have little regard for their own and others' safety, most people should not feel safe to exceed that speed in most situations in the absence of a speed limit, if you set the limit at quite a sensible speed in most situations or even far below what feels sensible it simply can't do that, you just create apathy towards speed limits.
That's not a good idea because drivers should take speed limits seriously. However it's the people that state they should be set so low that drivers no longer take them seriously are also the ones stating that drivers should rigorously obey them, which doesn't make sense to me.


I understand that a lot of people think that councils should be just be able to *set* a speed limit with complete indifference to the road standard and people will just do that. It's been known since the 1930s that doing that doesn't work, there's no point pretending it does. They know it doesn't, no ones saying you have to like it. Many limits are now being set in a manner that would only make sense if that was the case.
When you've got over 90% non-compliance it's pretty obvious there's no hidden force, but this is the best explanation I've seen.

Also with many speed limit drops councils are doing so with the expectation that even if their optimistic target of an average speed drop is met they know the average speed will be over the limit, it's non-compliance by design, they're pandering to people who think you can set a speed limit very low and people who genuinely speed will only dare got X amount over the posted limit.
Not only is that no true, but it's the fastest 1-5% who are the least likely to slow down, the most likely to do harm and the ones properly set speed limits are more efficient at targeting.

With many 20 limit roads you have such high non-compliance that you may push up your own accident risk just by trying to do the limit by trying to drive significantly slower than the mean traffic flow, then you get people trying to overtake you, I've noticed another unintended consequence of including main roads in 20 schemes is Sat Navs no longer see main roads as faster sending more cars down ordinary streets.
On many main roads you have to drive so slow compared to the mean traffic flow that it would ordinarily be against the highway code to do so and a major fault in a driving test.
Last edited by ajuk on Thu Jun 10, 2021 12:41, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
FosseWay
Assistant Site Manager
Posts: 19621
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:26
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: Bushey Road A298 20mph limit?!

Post by FosseWay »

Bryn666 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 11:50 To take the weed example - put simply, does smoking weed in your bedroom kill 1,800 people a year?

I know which I'd rather legalise, and speeding in urban areas isn't it. Societal norms might like speeding in urban areas, but it doesn't make it right. I refer to what I've said elsewhere - just because it's popular doesn't make it acceptable. Racism is popular, for example.
But it really depends on what you classify as "speeding". If you have a 30-limited road, then you can only be prosecuted for speeding if you exceed 30. If you then reduce the limit to 20, it doesn't automatically follow that doing 25 or 30 is suddenly magically more dangerous than it was yesterday.

"Speeding", as in driving faster than the legal limit, is only a legitimate problem to worry about if the legal limit is set at a level that achieves the best balance between practicality and accident prevention, bearing in mind all the other factors that can affect both. In an ideal world, the speed limit will be set at that balance point, meaning that exceeding it can, at least averaged out over time, be demonstrated to be unacceptably dangerous. But there is no physical law that says just because the council/government/whoever say doing X mph is dangerous but X-1 is OK, then it is thus. Councils etc., like drivers, are human beings and are capable of making mistakes and taking decisions for the wrong reasons. The best way to control for this is to follow a clear, statistically robust framework that underpins any restrictions you choose to impose. But we don't often see that, and nowhere is that clearer than in decisions to blanket whole neighbourhoods with the same limit regardless of size of road, how they're used, what the visibility's like and so on.

Obviously there must be an element of practicality involved - this is accepted by (most) authorities when prosecuting for speeding, where doing say 31 in a 30 is ignored. It applies the other way round, too, and drivers can't expect precisely tailored speed limits for every stretch of road. Some bits of roads for which 20 is overall a sensible limit will be good for 30 (or whatever) without unreasonable increased risk but are nevertheless covered by the 20. Likewise, some bends or junctions in a 30 limit will require a lower speed for safety, regardless of the limit. But there is no excuse for clear daftness as apparently is the case for the road that started this thread.

Road safety advocates who major on the "speeding is wrong" message instantly lose half their argument, IMV, because it's a classic case of begging the question. You *have* to justify the limit first in order then to be able to say that exceeding it is wrong.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Bushey Road A298 20mph limit?!

Post by Bryn666 »

FosseWay wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 12:31 Road safety advocates who major on the "speeding is wrong" message instantly lose half their argument, IMV, because it's a classic case of begging the question. You *have* to justify the limit first in order then to be able to say that exceeding it is wrong.
It cuts both ways - drivers should have to demonstrate why their preferred speed is justified too then.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
FosseWay
Assistant Site Manager
Posts: 19621
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:26
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: Bushey Road A298 20mph limit?!

Post by FosseWay »

Bryn666 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 13:26
FosseWay wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 12:31 Road safety advocates who major on the "speeding is wrong" message instantly lose half their argument, IMV, because it's a classic case of begging the question. You *have* to justify the limit first in order then to be able to say that exceeding it is wrong.
It cuts both ways - drivers should have to demonstrate why their preferred speed is justified too then.
The vast majority of people do this the vast majority of the time by managing to get to the end of their journey without incident. You can't really prove your (or someone else's) driving is safe by any other parameter. On the other hand, in cases where people do have collisions or near misses I think they should be asked whether their speed was appropriate, and then be taken through the cause and effect of their inappropriate speed. But that should be the question - what the legal limit is at the point in question is considerably less relevant.

At the end of the day, if you're driving such that you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear, on your side of the road and under control, then you are fulfilling your side of the road safety bargain.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
User avatar
ajuk
Member
Posts: 929
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 23:59
Location: Bristol

Re: Bushey Road A298 20mph limit?!

Post by ajuk »

Bryn666 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 11:50 To take the weed example - put simply, does smoking weed in your bedroom kill 1,800 people a year?

I know which I'd rather legalise, and speeding in urban areas isn't it. Societal norms might like speeding in urban areas, but it doesn't make it right. I refer to what I've said elsewhere - just because it's popular doesn't make it acceptable. Racism is popular, for example.
You're arguing to make speeding less acceptable, and so am I. You seem to be invoking the behaviour of poorer drivers as a justification for prohibiting the behaviour of some of the safest drivers on the road. 🤔
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Bushey Road A298 20mph limit?!

Post by Bryn666 »

FosseWay wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 13:48
Bryn666 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 13:26
FosseWay wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 12:31 Road safety advocates who major on the "speeding is wrong" message instantly lose half their argument, IMV, because it's a classic case of begging the question. You *have* to justify the limit first in order then to be able to say that exceeding it is wrong.
It cuts both ways - drivers should have to demonstrate why their preferred speed is justified too then.
The vast majority of people do this the vast majority of the time by managing to get to the end of their journey without incident. You can't really prove your (or someone else's) driving is safe by any other parameter. On the other hand, in cases where people do have collisions or near misses I think they should be asked whether their speed was appropriate, and then be taken through the cause and effect of their inappropriate speed. But that should be the question - what the legal limit is at the point in question is considerably less relevant.

At the end of the day, if you're driving such that you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear, on your side of the road and under control, then you are fulfilling your side of the road safety bargain.
That isn't really good enough as a justification. Doing something without causing an incident doesn't mean it's safe, it just means everyone involved lucked out. Drivers make thousands of mistakes in their driving careers, it only needs to be wrong once and someone is dead as a result, this is why we have laws to mitigate the effects of those mistakes - otherwise we'd allow people to drive at whatever speed they wanted, without a seatbelt, whilst having drunk 6 pints of beer.

Most people who cause fatalities on the road thought they were acting safely, they didn't mean to kill anyone, it was all an accident. No, it was a failure of competence. Causing death is failing to abide by your duty of care to other road users, plain and simple, yet whenever someone kills another road user everyone trails out the "oh, it's just a tragic accident" - and you know why? Because to say otherwise is to admit they too are incompetent behind the wheel.

The fact you have to undertake competence training and pass a test tells you that driving is inherently NOT a safe activity. It has risks and very real consequences if not done correctly. The human body only needs to experience an impact speed of 10 mph to break bones, now I am not saying that means the speed limit should be less than 10 mph but I am saying those arguing speed has no consequence is ridiculous and falls directly into the libertarian "I'm alright, screw everyone else" bracket.

To take this further, plenty of people illegally run across railway lines without being hit by trains - does that mean we should remove fences preventing incursion onto railways? It's arguably safe after all, because most people successfully avoid being killed by a train, yet we know when they don't the results are devastating.

It always boils down to the same thing - people arguing against road safety measures generally see it as an attack on their "right" to drive. They always have a spurious argument for why a particular road safety intervention can't happen. With breathalysers it was "but what about rural pub trade?", with seat belts it was "but what if my car catches fire and I get stuck?", with the 70 mph speed limit it was "but my car can't even reach 70 so what's the point!" and so on.

It's quite simple - we can go back to having less nanny state on the roads when drivers step up to the plate and prove they don't require it. I've already said numerous times I would happily see a less hands on road safety engineering world if it was supported by mandatory retesting of drivers every 5 years, not least to ensure their knowledge of evolving traffic law is up to date. The fact we have people on this very forum who have asked questions like "I didn't know such a sign had been removed from the rules, when did that happen?" speaks volumes.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Bushey Road A298 20mph limit?!

Post by Bryn666 »

ajuk wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 14:03
Bryn666 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 11:50 To take the weed example - put simply, does smoking weed in your bedroom kill 1,800 people a year?

I know which I'd rather legalise, and speeding in urban areas isn't it. Societal norms might like speeding in urban areas, but it doesn't make it right. I refer to what I've said elsewhere - just because it's popular doesn't make it acceptable. Racism is popular, for example.
You're arguing to make speeding less acceptable, and so am I. You seem to be invoking the behaviour of poorer drivers as a justification for prohibiting the behaviour of some of the safest drivers on the road. 🤔
Fallacious argument, if you're wilfully ignoring laws on the basis "you know best", you are not safe. Hubris is what causes most driver errors and results in most crashes.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
FosseWay
Assistant Site Manager
Posts: 19621
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:26
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: Bushey Road A298 20mph limit?!

Post by FosseWay »

Bryn666 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 14:05
FosseWay wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 13:48
Bryn666 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 13:26

It cuts both ways - drivers should have to demonstrate why their preferred speed is justified too then.
The vast majority of people do this the vast majority of the time by managing to get to the end of their journey without incident. You can't really prove your (or someone else's) driving is safe by any other parameter. On the other hand, in cases where people do have collisions or near misses I think they should be asked whether their speed was appropriate, and then be taken through the cause and effect of their inappropriate speed. But that should be the question - what the legal limit is at the point in question is considerably less relevant.

At the end of the day, if you're driving such that you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear, on your side of the road and under control, then you are fulfilling your side of the road safety bargain.
That isn't really good enough as a justification. Doing something without causing an incident doesn't mean it's safe, it just means everyone involved lucked out. Drivers make thousands of mistakes in their driving careers, it only needs to be wrong once and someone is dead as a result, this is why we have laws to mitigate the effects of those mistakes - otherwise we'd allow people to drive at whatever speed they wanted, without a seatbelt, whilst having drunk 6 pints of beer.
I agree that it's not conclusive, which is why I said that you can't prove safety in any other way - you can't prove a negative. You can, however, prove a positive, at least within statistically defined confidence limits, and those who accept a position in which they have legal powers over others' behaviour should be required to do this. Personally I think we should indeed place harder requirements on drivers to be competent, including mandatory retesting, and we should make driving bans mean something (a couple of weeks is pointless). But none of that justifies knee-jerk reactions that don't actually efficiently combat the problem that's been identified.

I've raised this before, but you have to wonder what the point of mass public transit is when it takes longer to go by bus from my house to the city than it does by bicycle. Much of that is the result of low speed limits, road geometry deliberately intended to slow cars to sensible speeds but that buses have to negotiate at walking speed, speed humps and excessive traffic lights (mostly not pure pedestrian crossings - at least these only go red when called by a pedestrian).
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Bushey Road A298 20mph limit?!

Post by Bryn666 »

FosseWay wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 14:30
Bryn666 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 14:05
FosseWay wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 13:48

The vast majority of people do this the vast majority of the time by managing to get to the end of their journey without incident. You can't really prove your (or someone else's) driving is safe by any other parameter. On the other hand, in cases where people do have collisions or near misses I think they should be asked whether their speed was appropriate, and then be taken through the cause and effect of their inappropriate speed. But that should be the question - what the legal limit is at the point in question is considerably less relevant.

At the end of the day, if you're driving such that you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear, on your side of the road and under control, then you are fulfilling your side of the road safety bargain.
That isn't really good enough as a justification. Doing something without causing an incident doesn't mean it's safe, it just means everyone involved lucked out. Drivers make thousands of mistakes in their driving careers, it only needs to be wrong once and someone is dead as a result, this is why we have laws to mitigate the effects of those mistakes - otherwise we'd allow people to drive at whatever speed they wanted, without a seatbelt, whilst having drunk 6 pints of beer.
I agree that it's not conclusive, which is why I said that you can't prove safety in any other way - you can't prove a negative. You can, however, prove a positive, at least within statistically defined confidence limits, and those who accept a position in which they have legal powers over others' behaviour should be required to do this. Personally I think we should indeed place harder requirements on drivers to be competent, including mandatory retesting, and we should make driving bans mean something (a couple of weeks is pointless). But none of that justifies knee-jerk reactions that don't actually efficiently combat the problem that's been identified.
This is the problem though - you're reduced to crap knee-jerk reactions when the "something must be done lobby" in the newspaper/local council demands a fix to a fatality on a road, and then when a proposal is developed, the "motorist entitlement lobby" in the same newspaper/local council complains about any efforts to do anything meaningful about road safety.

Until we have proper expertise led policy making this will continue - and however well meaning it is, people bleating about "well I just do what I think is safe anyway" just fuels further knee-jerking.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
ajuk
Member
Posts: 929
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 23:59
Location: Bristol

Re: Bushey Road A298 20mph limit?!

Post by ajuk »

Bryn666 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 14:05
ajuk wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 14:03
Bryn666 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 11:50 To take the weed example - put simply, does smoking weed in your bedroom kill 1,800 people a year?

I know which I'd rather legalise, and speeding in urban areas isn't it. Societal norms might like speeding in urban areas, but it doesn't make it right. I refer to what I've said elsewhere - just because it's popular doesn't make it acceptable. Racism is popular, for example.
You're arguing to make speeding less acceptable, and so am I. You seem to be invoking the behaviour of poorer drivers as a justification for prohibiting the behaviour of some of the safest drivers on the road. 🤔
Fallacious argument, if you're wilfully ignoring laws on the basis "you know best", you are not safe. Hubris is what causes most driver errors and results in most crashes.
If there is a law that says one must sit on a chair all day and eat milk, bread, and pine needles for sustenance is it a good law? No one is physically forcing him to move from that chair, therefore if he breaks that law it is wrong? If a law is being almost universally disregarded then there must be something outside of the law that determines if it is good or bad.

There's a lot of disregard with speed laws and I think that's a problem.
What I'll do is to try and explain why that is the case and give examples citing non-uniformity and the phycology behind it etc, essentially ignoring all that and coming back with "yeah but it's the law" so only people who aren't sensible will break it isn't a counter argument, because you could essentially make up any law and say the same thing.
The "law is the law" argument is just circular reasoning.
Post Reply