Triumph Rat Motorcycle Forums banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,585 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Speed, speed limits and enforcement issues occur fairly often here so I think we should try addressing the question directly.

With few exceptions, everywhere we ride is subject to a legal speed limit. These limits are set by some rational or democratic process but despite this "we" (some of us/all of us, sometimes/always) disagree with some of them or perhaps a better way to think of it is "the limit doesn't apply to me".

In the interests of stirring up some fine, well thought out, reasoned argument, I assert the following:

1) Speed limits are established by due lawful process and we should all therefore always respect them.
2) 21mph in a 20 zone is unacceptable.
3) 71mph on a 70mph motorway is unacceptable.
4) Automatic detection of offenders is to be encouraged.
5) Speeding where detection is impossible/unlikely is unacceptable.

Perhaps you think one or more of these is wrong?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
544 Posts
My first reaction was that I disagree with all five of your statments but let's have a rational discussion eh?

Here is my two pennoworth:

1) Speed limits were established at a time when vehicle performance, ie braking and handling was far inferior to current levels. Therefore I sugest that in many locations limits could safely be raised.
2) Until someone produces an accurate speedo then to enforce such fine tolerences would be unfair.
3) 1+2 cover this. The 70mph speed limit on motorways was introduced at a time when most family cars would struggle to reach 80mph. I am old enough to have driven before that limit was introduced and don't recall any problems due to excessive speed. Infact I would say that the motorways were safer then but I will concede that traffic levels are higher now.
4) More patrols would be far better. Cameras do not catch dangerous drivers.
5) What the eye doesn't see.....

6) I THINK YOUR TOUNGE IS FIRMLY IN YOUR CHEEK. :D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,585 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Looks like it's only you and me then :cool:

Your arguments boil down into: "I disagree with the rules so they shouldn't apply" and "you can't catch me". Not an entirely principled case then!

Your argument about limits being set when vehicles weren't so good doesn't really stack up. Firstly, many limits are only recently set: for example, most 40mph limits were reduced to 30mph through villages in Hampshire within the last two years and, secondly, vehicle performance related safety is only part of the equation.

Other considerations when setting speed limits include: driver competence; fuel consumption/pollution; and public perception of speed (eg in residential areas).

As I stated originally, the limits are set by lawful process. You should influence the lawful process to get them changed if you think they're wrong.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,294 Posts
These limits are set by some rational or democratic process
I applaud your choice of conjunction.

I think the golden rule sums up this issue very well. I can't stand the sight of people speeding down my road, where children (mine included) play. So I don't speed there. I don't give a warm bucket of hamster vomit what speed somebody in a high performance vehicle maintains on some remote, deserted road. So when traveling down an empty back road here in the glorious southwest, it's WFO, mate!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
544 Posts
These limits are set by some rational or democratic process

There is nothing rational about a speed limit set to control traffic at, let's say 10am. which is still in effect at 10pm.
What we have are limits set to the lower level which are not appropriate and therefore not respected. There is nothing safe about passing a school at 3pm and travelling at 30mph. (Or even 20mph). I respect speed limits in towns and villages but on the open road my common sense prevails.
As for democracy.......:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Speed Limits should be respected at all time, speed does kill.
But then again if we are realistic if im on the bike i will respect 30 and 50(Km/h) zones but 70 and up i tend to interpret more loosley.

What i think they should do i change the speed signs to electric ones that can be changed depnedning on weather conditions accidents ect. But since sweden is sutch a backwater country, the "DOT" here suck ass and is run buy old geeser whom their wives will never let them sit on a bike that will never happen and were stuck with 110 Km/h signs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,864 Posts
I'm chuckling, thinking about approaching a POLITICIAN about a subject like that. Please understand that there is NO common sense in such things....oftimes limits are set by political expediency instead of a Dep't of Transport study. Case-in-point...local backroad, hilly, a few curves but an easy 55 mph cruise. 40 is posted as max. Why, you ask? A politico's 80+ yr. old mother used to live on that road. She complained that "people were always speeding" up and down the road. The politico got the speed limit changed to 40 mph and pushed to have the local officers sit and monitor the speed.

She passed around 12 years ago...speed limit is still 40 mph, a pain for the locals; and the cops don't bother sitting out there, as the politico no longer is pushing them. But, it would probably take an act of Congress to get the limit changed.

Several cousins are NCSHP (state troopers)....they will not even blink if you're running 9 mph or less over the limit (exceptions are active work zones and school zones...2-3 over will get you a ticket). This varies with type of officer, how he feels that morning (with/without coffee, etc., wife nagged him that AM and he wants to take it out on someone, etc) but a couple of mph over on most streets will get you a stern stare 90% of the time.

Of course, YMMV. Interestingly (and I'll have to look for the study), it was shown that slow, bunched up traffic actually cause MORE accidents than free-moving traffic at a reasonable (< note this word) speed based on conditions, etc. Turns out that in perceived slower-speed traffic, the margins between cars was much lower than at a free-flow speed and that the % of accidents and total $ damage costs actually INCREASED. The "reasonable speed" was sometimes higher than the current posted limit. I'll see if I still have the link to that article.

Derswede
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,994 Posts
You already know what I think. So I won't repeat myself here as well. I refer you to for a clearly reasoned argument about the idiotic policy on speed currently being followed.;)

http://www.triumphrat.net/biker-hang-out/109649-speed-kills-or-so-his-organisation-says.html

And what do I do? I make it as hard as possible for the barstewards to collect the fines from their camera generated tickets. I also came up with a few ideas to demonstrate the stupidity of current policy and emailed them to the MAG campaigns manager. I've also written to my MP in the past though thats a pointless exercise realy.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,085 Posts
Speed limits are set by different bodies and are then enforced to a rule which in this country is to similar standards but not in all cases.

State highways speed limits are set by a government body, these are generally correct for the road conditions. Suburban and district roads are set by their own councils. Some councils differ in their approach. Neighbouring councils can have different speed limits on the same length of road which cross council boundaries.

One such road here is set at 50kph by one council and 80kph by it's neighbour for the exact same residential surroundings on the same road. The 50kph part of the road is heavily radar'd and used as a revenue collection by that particular council, now that is supposed to be legal !

Another council has a long stretch of road that goes from 4 lanes to 2, the 4 lanes are 50kmh and the 2 lanes are both 50kph and 60kph in various parts, highly confusing unless you really paying attention because the condition of the road doesn't change when it goes from 50 to 60. Again a revenue collection road, also 'legal'.

There's is an allowance by police being 10% over the speed limit except in school zones, this is fair, you don't have to concentrate more on your speedo than the road, than what you would have to do if they did you in for being a few seconds at 1kph over the limit.

Speed limits are supposed to be associated with safety, when they are truthfully set by councils for that reason instead of deliberately set for revenue collection then both limits and the councils that set them will be at least be respected.

--------------
Ride on ! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
I have no prob. doing the speed limit.

Not since I decided to leave early for work, or remember that a leisurely ride is just that. Plus, I live 20 min. from Barbor
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
285 Posts
In Australia the Northern Territory government introduced speed limits on its outback roads about 2 years ago. Prior to this the outback roads had unrestricted limits. The reason they did this was the same old story "Speed kills". I admit speed does kill if you have an accident while doing excessive speed. In this case though it backfired. Since the speed limits were introduced the road toll has increased. It has been suggested that since the introduction traffic is doing the limit nose to tail and causing accidents. I wonder if they will scrap the speed limits.. I think never, as long as my backside points to the ground they will never change the limits. Doing so would mean they made a wrong decision.

What amazes me is that the people in charge of statistics in Australia have a road toll listing state by state over any holiday period. They are always on about the increase in the road deaths over the previous year IE: 28 dead this year 25 dead last year. Fare enough there was an increase in road deaths for what ever reason (Speed, drink, negligence) etc. What they never take into account is that the population driving is always increasing and in fact the road deaths in some states has decreased as a % of population.

That was my 2c. worth.

FrankW
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,434 Posts
One thing that we forget when it comes to posted speed limits, is that they are set, like most other "limits" for the lowest common denominator.

Most motorcyclists see themselves as reasonably proficient at getting around, and also see that most speed limits (School and work zones accepted) are set too low. Most of us because of our supposed superior riding abilities would also see ourselves as pretty good drivers and be able to handle a car a lot better than a non motorcyclist.

The thing is, we are at one end of the scale, along with any car driver who has done an advanced driving course, but we're not the majority. The majority are the mums and dads who see a car as a necessary evil. They have learned "Operational use", but not really how to drive a car with respect to conditions, surroundings and prevailing traffic. All they have done is learned to steer a bit, put the thing in drive and what the two or three pedals on the floor do. To them it's not a lot different to operating a TV or a washing machine.

These are the people who the limits are set for.

That doesn't mean it's right, but usually if you set the limits higher, those who tend to bend the laws go even faster still.

I believe that because motorised transport means so many things to everyone, it must be a huge challenge to keep everyone who uses the roads happy.

I live in a small street, it's a slight downhill with a small hump, which is really good fun to go down fast, speed limit is 30mph (50kph), and even that is too fast when you're trying to get out of your driveway. To those who love jumping the hump, 30mph is pretty slow.....

Mick :cool:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,585 Posts
Discussion Starter #15 (Edited)
Ok, I think we've all done our bit now. The consensus is something along the lines of "we're happy to ride slow in places of obvious danger such as residences/schools/roadworks, etc but we're not happy with low limits on open roads".

Personally, for road safety purposes, I'd be happy for there to be no speed limits except where the danger is NOT obvious. If I'm riding past a school at turnout time, it should be blindingly obvious to me that I need to slow down. To cater for the morons who don't look where they're going (and might not notice the school), have bright flashing beacons saying "school - slow down!" On some open country roads in southern England there are hidden entrances to houses, not obvious until too late. Set a speed limit, preferably with a notice advising of the particular danger.

On motorways I see no safety excuse for a limit at all. No-one's allowed on a motorway until they've "qualified". They're purpose built, wide open roads, with very few natural hazards. I can imagine an argument that says "a mistake at 120mph is more likely to result in death than a mistake at 70mph". True but I commonly see drivers who are unsafe at 70mph or even slower. The cure is better driver education not some arbitrary limit.

I don't believe that, generally speaking, speed limits are set to enhance road safety. I believe that they're set to make prosecution easier. A skilled police officer can determine whether or not a driver is behaving badly whereas anyone (or a camera) can detect speed > limit.

I'd rewrite my original assertions as:

1) Speed limits are established by due lawful process and we'd best avoid being caught exceeding them.
2) 25mph in a 20 zone is irrelevant.
3) 80mph on a 70mph motorway is even less relevant.
4) Automatic detection of offenders is offensive and counter-productive.
5) Speeding where detection is impossible/unlikely is inevitable.

Perhaps you think one or more of these is wrong?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,994 Posts
So how do we change our stupid govt and local authority policy so that these eminently sensible suggestions are put into practice? I can't see a way. Yet it beggars belief that so many people think the same way as us on speed limits but just go quietly along with the bullsh.t.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top