Does speed kill? No, it’s speed in the wrong hands, or inappropriate speed that kills. Instead of driving by numbers we should drive according to context.
BRAKE! would claim that freedom to exercise judgement based on context is a licence to drive carelessly. On the contrary, it’s a blueprint for driving with true care and attention.
If pedestrians, especially children are near, let us proceed at walking pace. As a reasonable trade-off, when the road is clear, let us, within reason, drive at our own chosen speed.
On busy streets, 30 or even 20mph is too fast, yet speed limits license speed at the posted limit, absolving drivers of responsibility in the event of an “accident”. Would you want to be hit by a bus doing 20mph? Six year-old Ben Alston was.
All too often, speed limits are irrelevant to the needs of the moment. It’s ludicrous to operate traffic lights all night, and ludicrous to operate speed cameras all night.
Full-time carer, Alec Dennis, 61, pleaded guilty to driving at 52mph in a 30 limit on his way to hospital, where he was taking his son who had stomach pains. Dennis was worried about leaving his disabled wife, but feared his son had appendicitis (it turned out to be kidney stones). He didn’t call an ambulance because of delays experienced in the past. Dennis got 6 points, an £85 fine and a £15 victim surcharge. The time of day the speed camera caught him committing his “crime”? 4.20 a.m. On the face of it, his conviction sounds criminally inappropriate. Story here.
No-one minds reasonable regulation. What makes us see red is regulation for its own sake, or regulation devoted to raising revenue. As the photos below show, limits can be nonsensical. Where is the spirit in all this regulation? Conspicuous by its absence.
Instead of watching the speedometer and watching out for cameras, we would watch the road, surely the safest of safety principles.
An advanced driving test should be phased in, to include hours of computer simulation, skid-pan experience, and practice based on a full appreciation of all the elements involved.
No limits on motorways would bring at least one advantage: lane courtesy and an end to middle lane-blocking, which would free up at least a third of motorway capacity.
Life is about infinite variables, so one-size-fits-all rules are a contradiction in terms. Far better to rewrite the rules, and let people act according to the needs of the moment.
Whether or not Chris Huhne tried to pass the buck, his saga reveals the contortions to which citizens can be driven to escape the tentacles of a system that values the letter of the law above the spirit.
For all the negative publicity about “speeding” (a fabricated crime), you’d think exceeding the limit was a major factor in “accidents”, yet the DfT blames it for only 5% of accidents. See P.7 of this document, under the heading “Injudicious actions”.
“The safest drivers are those who drive faster than average,” writes Chad Dornsife of the US Best Highway Safety Practices Institute, “yet they are the primary targets of speed enforcement. The desired safety effect of speed limits is achieved by removing them.”
While Swindon has decommissioned its speed cameras, Oxfordshire has reactivated theirs. There’s a lively discussion about it here.