Nuxx:E3cc32b7-b1ca-46a3-9e15-7d0e33c11d96@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Effects of Inappropriately Low Speed Limits Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:00:34 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 70 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.150.242 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1245096035 5822 127.0.0.1 (15 Jun 2009 20:00:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:00:35 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.150.242; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.11) Gecko/2009060215 Firefox/3.0.11 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4990 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:710000

What do you believe are the results of setting a speed limit too low for a stretch of road? (The car-haters can just reply "5"; in fact, they needn't even do that, as it'll be obvious anyway that that's what they think.)

1. Forcing drivers to travel at an inappropriately low speed is a very bad idea, and comes with an array of dangerous side effects, e.g. inducing boredom in the driver, distracting the driver by forcing them to concentrate on maintaining an unnaturally low speed, lulling the driver and other road users into a false sense of security because they're "going slowly", losing the distinction between inappropriately low and appropriately low speed limits, and a whole lot more. Unsurprisingly it has been shown that setting speed limits inappropriately low increases accidents.

It also criminalises the safest group of drivers (those travelling at the 85th to 90th percentile speeds), which is clearly wrong unless you have a desire to criminalise and bully motorists in general. And forcing drivers to travel unnecessarily slowly also adversely impacts the economy, which in times like this is more destructive than ever.

2. While there are marginal ill effects from setting a speed limit too low, setting a speed limit too high is far worse. It is better to have ten speed limits which are too low than one speed limit which is too high. Therefore it is best to err on the side of caution, and aim to set speed limits maybe 10mph lower than they really need to be in order to allow for error. If, as a result, drivers are criminalised for travelling at safe speeds then that is tough.

3. There are no benefits from setting a speed limit lower than it needs to be; however, there are no ill effects either. As long as a speed limit isn't too high, that's the only thing that matters. Setting speed limits lower than the speed that most motorists drive at is usually a good way of ensuring that this is achieved.

4. There's no such thing as a speed limit that's "too low"; on the contrary, the lower, the better, without exception. Lowering a speed limit *always* has safety benefits, and the current programme of speed limit reductions should continue indefinitely until every speed limit is 5mph or less (and even then, lowering a speed limit from 5mph to 4mph would make things safer still...there is no point at which a speed limit is ever "low enough" as slower is safer and that's that). The best way of reducing traffic accidents is to reduce every driver's speed all the time, no matter what the conditions may allow. Impatient, irresponsible motorists have got to learn that saving lives comes before getting home early.

5. I don't really care what the safety-related effects are; the most important thing by far is that lower speed limits make things unpleasant for motorists, which can only be a good thing. Once drivers have been bullied out of their cars, the resulting safety benefit to everyone will be worth any temporary danger caused by inappropriate speed limits and other dangerous road "safety" measures. If motorists don't like being delayed by needlessly low speed limits, tough: they shouldn't be driving in the first place, and they deserve everything they get.

(This *is* relevant to cycling, unless of course you believe that speed limits and cameras have no bearing either way on cyclist safety. If you don't like this post, because you feel uncomfortable when someone exposes the idiocy of your precious anti-motorist measures, then tough: either find a genuine reason to complain about the post, or preferably don't bother at all and accept that if you're wrong about something, people have a perfect right to point that out.)

NUXX BAR -- Guy Chapman: have you ever posted as Lou Knee? WHY WILL YOU NOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION?