Between 1865 and 1896 in the United Kingdom, the speed limit for locomotives on the highway was 2pm in cities, towns and villages and 4pm elsewhere, and they also had to be preceded by a pedestrian carrying a red flag. This was then increased to 14mph and to 20mph in 1903.
Between 1930 and 1965, speed limits for cars and motorcycles were abolished, although a 30mph speed limit for built-up areas was introduced in 1934, which is still pretty much the case today. In 1965, a series of motorway accidents led to the trialling of a 70mph speed limit, whilst a 60mph limit on single carriageways was introduced in 1977.
Vehicle safety and driving training has come a long way since the 1930s and even the 1960s, so is it time that these age-old limits were reviewed?
In 2005, the AA did just that by controversially recommending the national speed limit increased to 80mph in controlled areas, such as the M25 variable speed limit zone. This statement was met with fierce opposition from road safety groups, including RoadPeace, a motoring charity, which affirmed that "any raising of the limit would make the roads more dangerous".
The Chief Executive of road safety charity, Brake – Mary Williams OBE – stated that "The proposal to raise the limit on motorways is irresponsible and flies in the face of road safety advice". The concerns stem chiefly from evidence from the USA and Germany, where higher or unrestricted speed limits seem to relate to higher casualty rates.
Indeed, Britain has one of the world’s best road safety records. A report produced by the Department for Transport in 2004 showed that UK experiences 6 road deaths per 100,000 of its population, whilst Germany, Italy and France suffer 8.3, 11.7 and 12.9 respectively.
Strange then, that within the same report, it was found that 58% of car drivers exceed the 30mph speed limit, whilst 57% confessed to breaking the 70mph national speed limit. How, you may think, can our roads be some of the world’s safest when more than half of all drivers are speeding?
In 2005, the Department for Transport published an analysis of road accidents, which stated that in 35% of accidents, the main contributory factors was loss of control; followed by going too fast for conditions and failing to look properly, both at 17%; and poor manoeuvring and excessive speed at 12%. Exceeding the speed limit contributed to 28% of all fatal road accidents.
Nevertheless, enforcement of speed limits seems to remain the top priority for government initiatives to reduce road accidents. This may be due to bodies such as the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety combining the factors of excessive and inappropriate speed and thereby concluding that speeding is the ‘number one cause’ of road deaths in the UK.
In reality, this is a fallacy. Excessive speed equates to breaking the law. Inappropriate speed, or going too fast for the conditions, equates to poor driving discipline. The key difference here is between speed and speeding. Clearly a vehicle that is stationary is fairly unlikely to do anyone any harm – it’s generally when cars get moving that they represent any sort of danger.
Strange then, that within the same report, it was found that 58% of car drivers exceed the 30mph speed limit, whilst 57% confessed to breaking the 70mph national speed limit. How, you may think, can our roads be some of the world’s safest when more than half of all drivers are speeding?
In 2005, the Department for Transport published an analysis of road accidents, which stated that in 35% of accidents, the main contributory factors was loss of control; followed by going too fast for conditions and failing to look properly, both at 17%; and poor manoeuvring and excessive speed at 12%. Exceeding the speed limit contributed to 28% of all fatal road accidents.
Nevertheless, enforcement of speed limits seems to remain the top priority for government initiatives to reduce road accidents. This may be due to bodies such as the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety combining the factors of excessive and inappropriate speed and thereby concluding that speeding is the ‘number one cause’ of road deaths in the UK.
In reality, this is a fallacy. Excessive speed equates to breaking the law. Inappropriate speed, or going too fast for the conditions, equates to poor driving discipline. The key difference here is between speed and speeding. Clearly a vehicle that is stationary is fairly unlikely to do anyone any harm – it’s generally when cars get moving that they represent any sort of danger.
Indeed, the first ever fatality of a motor vehicle accident was Bridget Driscoll, who, in August 1896, was hit by Arthur Edsell’s 1895 Peugeot, as an almost pedestrian 4mph. The vehicle was driving at twice the speed limit. Whilst motorists’ groups and road safety campaigners alike attempt to distinguish between ‘safe’ and ‘unsafe’ speeds, in reality there is no safe speed.
The distinction is compromised further by the Association of Chief Police Officers’ guidelines, which recommend a tolerance level of the speed limit of ‘+10% +2 mph’. This means that the national speed limit is virtually extended to 79mph. Officials state inaccurate speedometer readings as the reason for this tolerance, but any way you cut it, 9mph is a pretty significant inaccuracy.
Then you have the environmental implications of speed reduction. The AA, again somewhat controversially, stated that reducing the speed limit from 30mph to 20mph in urban areas could result in an increase in carbon dioxide emissions of 10%, whilst adding speed bumps can increase fuel consumption by 50%; despite the Department for Transport’s claims that both can reduce accident frequency by 60%.
The distinction is compromised further by the Association of Chief Police Officers’ guidelines, which recommend a tolerance level of the speed limit of ‘+10% +2 mph’. This means that the national speed limit is virtually extended to 79mph. Officials state inaccurate speedometer readings as the reason for this tolerance, but any way you cut it, 9mph is a pretty significant inaccuracy.
Then you have the environmental implications of speed reduction. The AA, again somewhat controversially, stated that reducing the speed limit from 30mph to 20mph in urban areas could result in an increase in carbon dioxide emissions of 10%, whilst adding speed bumps can increase fuel consumption by 50%; despite the Department for Transport’s claims that both can reduce accident frequency by 60%.
Targeting excessive speed may seem like the most obvious approach to reducing road accidents, but it’s not the ultimate response. Between 2000 and 2006, Britain reduced its road death rate by 0.4 per 100,000 people. In the same period, the Netherlands and Sweden experienced reductions of 2.5 and 1.8 per 100,000 respectively. The methods they employed were not just focussed on speed, but also on road design and provision for pedestrians and cyclists.
However, I would certainly not advocate Ian Roberts’ view, taken from the Royal Society of Medicine’s journal in August 2007, which states that “Reclaiming the streets for walking and cycling is the future of sustainable transport.” Pedestrians have pavements; cyclists have cycle paths; motor vehicles have roads. Pedestrianising the M25 isn’t going to do anything...except perhaps bring the economy to a standstill.
Speeding undoubtedly contributes to road accidents, but simply trying to stop speeding isn’t going to bring an end to these accidents. If we really want to do something about road accidents, then we need to realise that Britain needs better drivers.
The Association of British Insurers believes new drivers should take a ‘year of lessons’ and I’m half way to agreeing with them. I passed my test first time after eight months of lessons and I’ve not had an accident in the four years since. I’m concerned by intensive, ‘pass-first-time-or-your-money-back’ courses that give learner drivers no real experience of seasonal conditions and I’m envious of my Scandinavian friends who have skid-pan practice built into their driving tests.
The good news is that the Institute of Advanced Motorists runs a ‘Skill for Life’ advanced driving test that costs just £99. My only question is why it’s not compulsory.
However, I would certainly not advocate Ian Roberts’ view, taken from the Royal Society of Medicine’s journal in August 2007, which states that “Reclaiming the streets for walking and cycling is the future of sustainable transport.” Pedestrians have pavements; cyclists have cycle paths; motor vehicles have roads. Pedestrianising the M25 isn’t going to do anything...except perhaps bring the economy to a standstill.
Speeding undoubtedly contributes to road accidents, but simply trying to stop speeding isn’t going to bring an end to these accidents. If we really want to do something about road accidents, then we need to realise that Britain needs better drivers.
The Association of British Insurers believes new drivers should take a ‘year of lessons’ and I’m half way to agreeing with them. I passed my test first time after eight months of lessons and I’ve not had an accident in the four years since. I’m concerned by intensive, ‘pass-first-time-or-your-money-back’ courses that give learner drivers no real experience of seasonal conditions and I’m envious of my Scandinavian friends who have skid-pan practice built into their driving tests.
The good news is that the Institute of Advanced Motorists runs a ‘Skill for Life’ advanced driving test that costs just £99. My only question is why it’s not compulsory.
No comments:
Post a Comment