This government is driving me crazy
Tuesday, April 21, 2009 As some of you have already mentioned (see comments on previous post) the Government wants councils to consider reducing speed limits from 30 to 20mph in residential areas, and from 60 to 50mph on many A-roads.
They say they want to focus on accident black spots but that's not how it works. It may start like that, but as we know politicians, bureaucrats and campaigners never know when to stop. Eventually, irrespective of the number of accidents in a particular area, central government will intervene and reduce speed limits on roads throughout the country.
I don't have a problem with reducing the speed limit on high streets, housing estates or near schools. But the idea of travelling at 20mph through every built up area - or, worse, 50mph on many A-roads - drives me crazy.
My parents live near Ashbourne in Derbyshire and as far as I can tell the entire county is a 50mph zone. Parts of Derbyshire are extremely rural and, yes, there are lots of sweeping, dipping roads with numerous blind corners and sharp, hazardous bends.
But even Derbyshire has long straight stretches of road that are perfect for overtaking. But I can't because I'm stuck in a long line of slow-moving traffic in which every Tom, Dick and Eddie Stobart is forced to drive at the same effing speed - 50mph.
Why won't they allow me to use my common sense - and a powerful engine - to get past slower moving vehicles without being caught out by one of the hundreds of speed cameras that blight this beautiful county?
What I also object to is the fact that, yet again, the changes the Government wants to introduce are entirely restrictive - unless you're a cyclist in which case you'll be doing wheelies at the news that someone who drives "too close" to you could be given an on-the-spot fine.
I've written about this before, but why can't they give as well as take and increase the top speed on motorways to 80 or 90mph? The Tories, if I remember rightly, were proposing to do exactly that a few years ago. It was even in their 2005 election manifesto.
Since then the idea has been quietly dropped. Why? Apart from a promise to amend the smoking ban, that is the one policy that would convince me to vote Conservative at the next election.
But what really bothers me is that this story - reported on the front page of The Times HERE- has nothing to do with road safety. Like Gordon Brown's fatuous intervention on MPs' expenses, it's all about spin.
How many more ill-considered policies are they going to come up with over the next few weeks and months as they try to manipulate the news agenda and regain what they consider to be the moral high ground.
Reduce deaths on the road? Lower the speed limit! Reduce youth smoking rates? Ban tobacco displays and vending machines! Reduce "binge-drinking"? Increase the minimum price of alcohol! Etc etc.
It reminds me of a retreating army, burning everything in its path ...
Reader Comments (13)
My husband listened to a debate on the radio today where there was a women who always drove everywhere at a maximum 30mph and normal drivers, including lorry drivers, who are driven insane by these selfish people.
She was trying to justify what she did by saying that it was safer and anyone driving above her speed was a danger and should not be on the road.
As you can imagine, no-one was in support of her. As the lorry driver said, her and people like her driving on A roads at 30mph held him up by 10 mph, as legally he was restricted to 40mph and therefore caused him to be late with deliveries, which ultimately, if this carried on, would increase the cost of delivering goods to shops, etc,
Her other comment was that the drivers who wanted to drive faster than 30mph should use a different road to her! She is on a national speed limit road and is saying other drivers should find another route! It beggars belief, but I bet she will earn hundreds of brownie points for HMG!
People like her, and sadly, there are plenty of them, are downright dangerous on the roads and if they are incapable of driving to a speed limit, then they should not be in charge of a motorised vehicle!
Most of all, this bloody, idiotic government should not be encouraging or pandering to the likes of these morons!
Ultimately we will have far more road congestion, far more fumes from vehicles which already means that the air we breath is nowhere near clean, so cigarette smoke is hardly an issue, inside or out, as every time a door or window is opened, the inside of a pub, club or whatever, is invaded with traffic fumes, even if they are few yards back from the road or in the middle of field!
When will common sense finally prevail in this totally mad country?
I know some, including myself, have said that it seems the lunatics are running the asylum - even they could make a better job than the sorry excuse we have for a government just now and, candidly, I don't see either the Conservatives or the Lib Dems being any better!
God help us all!
Excellent piece, Simon, and spot on about Derbyshire. The reduction of the A515 between Ashbourne and Buxton - for long stretches one of the straightest and best-aligned A-roads in the UK - is especially infuriating.
Simon - The truth is this government is programmed to control, restrict, regulate, coerce, ban and fine every single facet of life. Why, you may ask? Yes, they are certainly control freaks, but I think they think they are duty-bound to do so. It is what the electorate want. What the electorate want is a General Election and sooner rather than later. New Labour is beyond the pale; they have truly reduced this country to a wretched, battered hulk.
They take, take and take, but never give anything in return. What about increasing the speed limit on motorways to 80mph? Now that would be original and innovative thinking to compensate for the proposed speed reductions. With this bunch of useless prats, not a chance.
I wrote about this a while ago. Nulabor have enacted the enabling legislation for councils to impose absurd speed-limits without reference to the DoT. In my area, there are many instances where the police regard these new limits as "unenforceable".
In the case of Oxford city, the council are capitulating to the hysterical anti-motoring lobby. Their dirty-tricks are a mirror of those that posters here will be very familiar with.
And...
I could... and probably will at some point... do a blogrant about the sort of thicko drivers mentioned by Lyn.
Subheadings as maybe...
The 40 Everywhere driver
The 66% Driver. [20 in a 30, 40 in a 60]
The I Know Where I'm Going So Why Indicate? Driver
The Press-On Regardless [of obstacle, oncoming vehicle on narrow road, accident etc.] Driver
The Tailgate But Won't Overtake...
The Policeman Enforcer...
The Rearview Racer [speed-limit minus 10% then floors it when you try to overtake]
etc. etc. etc. boring myself now etc etc
Shit, maybe I've been driving too long.
The Times article gives a figure of 1000 for the expected number of lives saved by cutting speed limits on all roads. That's the benefit. What about the costs? We can make an estimate.
First the benefits. If 1000 lives are saved each year, and these deaths are divided equally among all ages in a population with a mean lifetime of 70 years, then on average each life saved will have a duration of half a lifetime, or 35 years, and so an extra 35,000 years of life will be gained. So on the benefit side there's 35,000 years.
Now let's look at the costs. There are about 26 million cars on Britain's roads, each of which do an average annual mileage of 10,000 miles, which works out at about 30 miles per day. At a speed of 60 mph, 30 miles is travelled in 0.5 hours. And at 50 mph it is travelled in 0.6 hours. So under the new speed limits each daily journey would take 6 minutes longer, With 26 million cars, that totals about 110,000 years of extra journey time per annum. That's the cost. Or part of the cost.
And this doesn't include the extra journey time for all other vehicles, including lorries, buses, and motorcycles. And it also supposes that there is only a driver in each car and no passengers. Adding in all these could easily double the the cost to over 200,000 years.
And then there are other costs, like the cost of changing road signs across the whole of Britain. So let's bump up the costs to about 250,000 years/year.
So the new measure will have a benefit of 35,000 years, and cost of 250,000 years, and so a net cost of 215,000 years to British road vehicle users - drivers and passengers, This will work out at about 1.5 days of extra travel time per person per year.
No wonder the country is going bust.
Furthermore, this burden will have to be borne by most of the population of the country in order to benefit a small minority of 1000 people. Which is exactly the same as the entire country paying taxes to support a small aristocracy in the life to which it is accustomed - a feudal arrangement.
It would actually make much more sense to raise the speed limit from 60 to 70 mph, and swap the costs and benefits, so that an extra 1000 people are killed on the roads each year to provide a net gain of 200,000 years /annum for everybody else - the Few heroically giving up their lives to benefit the many, possibly to be commemorated each year with Churchill's stirring words about "so much being owed by so many to so few".
As ZanuLabour race towards oblivion they employ the only tactic they understand:
Scorched earth policy.
They make Saddam look like a boy scout....
There is one other issue that I have mentioned before - that of watching your speedo so as not to be done for speeding by a couple of miles per hour, but in doing so, not be so aware of what is happening around you, therefore extending the reaction time to any event!
Finally, most town centres and residential areas are self regulating with speed, certainly during the times that they are busiest with people and drivers need to be particularly aware of pedestrians (who ought to have some form of training and penalty system for being prats!). How can these ridiculous 20mph, and in some cases, even 30mph be justified at times of night when the streets are deserted? Many smaller towns and villages are completely empty during the night and although I would not condone racing through the streets, it would be sensible to allow a 40mph limit during these times.
Yes, Lyn, there is no reason why there couldn't be a system of variable speed limits in an area and I'm sure that this could be implemented using those flashing speed limit signs, although personally, I'd prefer if they just accepted that people who've passed their test realise that speed limits don't denote minimum speed and that they're expected to and capable of using their own judgment.
(I actually believe that the proliferation of warning signs encourages poor driving: if, for example, you see a flashing 'Bend - Slow Down' light, it's quite reasonable to presume that you'll be forewarned of every bend which, of course, is not the case (partly because one man's hairpin is another man's gentle curve). More accidents will be caused by drivers becoming passive and lazy and expecting road signs to replace their judgment.)
The lowering of speed limits has all the hallmarks of NuLabour's Cliff Clavin approach to government, with the added benefit of NuLabour's USP, the stealth tax.
I agree Joyce and what has been very much forgotten in all of this is that the original speed limits were set decades ago based on the average speed a road was driven at at the time, so the vehicles were not as advanced as they are today, although I guess this could be balanced out, to a degree, by the increase in vehicles on the roads - just!
Idlex, I disagree with your calculation solely because you forgot the biggest factor; increased congestion.
These measures aren't going to reduce people's average mileage, but will, as you pointed out, increase the time they have to spend on the road.
Thus, there'll be more vehicles on the road at any given time = more congestion and even longer journey times, which means MORE vehicles on the road for longer and even more congestion.
With traffic in certain areas there's a tipping point where free flowing traffic becomes gridlock and it takes suprisingly little to push some roads through their tipping point.
I suspect HMG knows all this, just as they know how deeply unpopular road pricing is and how much they've already invested in the satellites designed to make road pricing possible.
I suspect a few years down the line when road deaths haven't changed by much, but congestion has become a major issue they'll roll out their road pricing solution... providing we don't boot them the hell out of office first.
As someone who has driven at speeds that today would get me jailed I have been banned twice for speeding, managed to amass over 30 years of driving 21 points at varying times. The law on road safety is a blunt instrument and takes no account of driving skills. However, tempting fate, I have 22 years no claims bonus. I have had knocks, biffs and bumps, but not a prang that has to go to an insurance company. As Richard Hammond, Hamster on Top Gear and I think reported on this site, said that those with good driving records should be awarded good driving points which could be traded off against driving penalties.
Alas with the majority of people being very good drivers, it would nulify most of the fines handed out with gay abandon.
Dave - the labour government give something back? Ridiculous. I also agree with Richard Hammond's idea of rewarding safe driving.
My one and only speeding ticket was for driving at 35 in a 30 BUT that same road HAD been a 40 a few weeks earlier and I'd simply forgotton.
It was at night, the road was empty and it was nothing more than a momentary lapse, but one that cost me 60 quid and 3 points on my license, which really doesn't seem right.
It's not justice, but then this government hasn't shown much interest in promoting justice.