Keep Death Off Rural Roads

Robisere wrote: »

I signed. If you didn't, then you don't agree with it. No need to blather on about it, just don't sign.

It's called democracy. I also shared it to FB.

Well if does go through, wait for the cutbacks in other services the council provides so they can pay for it.

That's also called democracy!

Robisere wrote: »

I signed. If you didn't, then you don't agree with it. No need to blather on about it, just don't sign.

It's called democracy. I also shared it to FB.

If someone posts something like an invitation to sign a petition on a 'discussion board' they they should expect it to be 'discussed'. That is after all the point of it isnt it? Otherwise its just advertising and the post should be removed.

I live in a rural area and I cannot understand why people truly think that putting up a speed limit sign that says '40' for instance will make people drive at 40 or below, people can read, but choose to exceed speed limits, those that drive recklessly will not observe speed limit signs irrespective of what number is on it.

People should drive according to conditions and the road, those that don't face the consequences of their actions I guess, sick of this nanny state that some members of the public want

I often drive on country roads in Kent , worse offenders seem to be the locals who think is ok as they "know the road" and can drive faster

steampowered wrote: »

People seem to drive unbelievably fast and dangerously on a lot of country roads. I've always thought that a 60mph limit seems extremely high for this kind of road.

esuhl wrote: »

People who drive at motorway speeds on narrow country lanes deserve a lifetime driving ban ... I'm so sick of the appetite that drivers have for killing others on our roads.

This is the problem with blanket speed limits - what is 'this kind of road'? A wide single carriageway 'c' road can be straight as an arrow for miles and then hit a narrow blind bend - are you saying the safe speed on both bits of this road is the same?

In the same way, urban roads need a variety of speed limits to reflect different circumstances. Is anyone proposing a 20 mph limit on the M1 as it passes through Sheffield because it is an 'urban road'?

Speed limits used to be set based on the 85th percentile speed. I.e. work out what speed 85% of drivers feel is safe and appropriate, then set the limit at the next lowest standard level. This restricts the excesses of the few whilst allowing the majority to drive appropriately fast.

Setting excessively low speed limits means drivers ignore them and reduces confidence in the speed limit system - it is more dangerous to have some drivers ignoring an excessively low limit than it is to have a slightly higher limit which is adhered to.

cairndog wrote: »

Lucky me you may think but unfortunately 59% of fatalities occur on rural roads!!

The only unfortunate thing about this is it is a classic case of misuse of statistics to support a case.

Road safety engineers normally do not use the number of fatalities to make decisions and design improvements. Each fatality is a tragedy, but it represents an outcome, not necessarily a cause.

Vehicles travelling on rural roads may be travelling at higher speeds, which may result in accidents which are more severe and may be more likely to result in a fatality.

But the factor which is more likely to determine whether or not an accident becomes a fatality is the speed at which the potential victim first gets emergency medical treatment. On a rural road the time it takes for the victim of a serious accident to be discovered by someone able to call the emergency services will be greater. The time it takes for the emergency services to arrive at the scene will be greater. The time it takes to get the victim to an emergency treatment centre will be greater. If you understand the 'golden hour' concept then you are more likely to understand why rural roads have a much higher risk of fatalities than urban roads.

If the petitioners are sucessful then it is quite possible the number of fatal accidents will increase as a result. If they genuinely want to reduce the number of fatal accidents on rural roads they would do far better to petition for improved emergency medical services, and for the government to fund more air ambulances and first responders, rather than expecting charities to do it.

You also need to be aware that if you reduce the 59% of fatalities that occur on rural roads you will increase the percentage on urban roads... is that really what you are aiming to achieve?

Lower speeds on rural roads will make residents, pedestrians and cyclists feel more comfortable - but it won't stop people being killed.