A seguradora Direct Line lançou uma campanha a defender um limite de 40mph (64km/h) nas zonas rurais.
Duas organizações ligadas à segurança rodoviária no RU prontamente responderam da foram seguinte:
"In calling for a blanket 40mph speed limit on rural roads, insurer Direct Line is misleading the public, according to road safety campaign Safe Speed.
Safe Speed refuted the insurer's claim that a 'high number of fatalities now occurring on country lanes', and said: "contrary to the sensationalist headline claim, very few drivers 'use the road like a racetrack'."
Safe Speed issued the following statement:
The first critical mistake is to use figures that apply to all rural roads ranging from high specification dual carriageways to low specification country lanes. Clearly different issues apply to such widely different road types. High mileages are being driven safely on all road types by the majority of drivers. Calling for a 40mph speed limit on rural roads without qualification, is not a valid road safety suggestion - it's a PR stunt.
National road safety trends are extremely disappointing, but rural roads are not especially bad.
The absurd claim that 'one third of crashes are caused by speeding' was debunked years ago. The truth is that around five per cent of crashes have 'exceeding the speed limit' as a contributory factor, and often 'exceeding the speed limit' plays no part in crash causation.
Most speeding is the result of drivers recognising a suitable and safe speed from the immediate conditions. In order to drive safely we all carry out ongoing subconscious risk assessments. When hazards threaten we slow down. When they do not we speed up.
Far from being a problem, this behaviour is absolutely vital to road safety. We must have drivers who adjust their speed to suit the hazard environment. Since the risk assessment process is subconscious, it isn't surprising that drivers are largely unable to properly explain their behaviour.
Campaign founder Paul Smith said: "A 40mph blanket rural speed limit is neither necessary nor desirable. Unnecessarily slow speed limits reduce respect for worthwhile speed limits, deskill driving and can cause dangerous frustration and inattention.
"We have had 'speed kills' road safety policy for over a decade with widespread speed limit reductions and mushrooming speed cameras. Despite the self-congratulatory claims from Department for Transport and the camera partnerships, these policies are an abject failure with road deaths and road crash hospitalisations stubbornly failing to fall. The system is only supported by tortured statistics and oversimplified arguments. The 'slower is safer brigade' have yet to explain why it isn't working after over a decade.
"The authorities must stop denying reality. 'Speed kills' road safety policy has failed comprehensively. We must return to psychologically sound road safety policies based on skills, attitudes and responsibilities. We'll see no improvement in road safety until we do.
"You can't measure safe driving in miles per hour."
The ABD weighs in
Meanwhile, road safety group, the Association of British Drivers, has suggested that Direct Line's survey takes road safety `up a blind alley’. The survey demands a limit of no more than 40mph on all rural roads because of “the high number of fatalities now occurring on country lanes”.
A quick check on accidents and accident rates by road class and severity from Transport Statistics GB 2005 shows that accident rates are much lower on rural roads than urban ones -- 70 accidents per 100 million vehicle/km occur on urban A-roads against 25 on rural A-roads, while 64 accidents per 100 million vehicle/km on other urban roads against 46 on other rural roads.
Direct Line did not produce a supporting analysis but inferred that because 26 per cent of rural drivers surveyed admit to exceeding 60mph speed limits on rural roads, speeding is `one of the main causes of accidents’.
Mark McArthur-Christie, the ABD’s Director of Policy said: “It’s difficult to see the road safety logic behind Direct Line’s rather confused argument. They don’t offer any evidence that the fatal crashes are related to people breaking the 60mph limit -- because there is none. And if breaking the 60 limit were the problem, where is the sense in reducing that limit to 40mph? This reads more like a PR-driven survey than serious road safety.”
McArthur-Christie concluded “We must move away from the view that `the answer’s a blanket speed limit - now what’s the question?’ A safe speed for the conditions varies constantly, from second to second and can be significantly above or below 40mph. Good drivers know and recognise this. Blanket speed limits just increase frustration overtakes, cause drivers to tailgate and reduce respect for speed limits generally. Forcing compliance with such limits reduces attention and stops drivers thinking for themselves - a head on collision between two cars doing 40mph is still likely to be fatal, and speedo watching, brain dead driving makes this more likely on country lanes.”
"
in Pistonheads
P.S: Se quiserem traduzir para português, força com isso.
Duas organizações ligadas à segurança rodoviária no RU prontamente responderam da foram seguinte:
"In calling for a blanket 40mph speed limit on rural roads, insurer Direct Line is misleading the public, according to road safety campaign Safe Speed.
Safe Speed refuted the insurer's claim that a 'high number of fatalities now occurring on country lanes', and said: "contrary to the sensationalist headline claim, very few drivers 'use the road like a racetrack'."
Safe Speed issued the following statement:
The first critical mistake is to use figures that apply to all rural roads ranging from high specification dual carriageways to low specification country lanes. Clearly different issues apply to such widely different road types. High mileages are being driven safely on all road types by the majority of drivers. Calling for a 40mph speed limit on rural roads without qualification, is not a valid road safety suggestion - it's a PR stunt.
National road safety trends are extremely disappointing, but rural roads are not especially bad.
The absurd claim that 'one third of crashes are caused by speeding' was debunked years ago. The truth is that around five per cent of crashes have 'exceeding the speed limit' as a contributory factor, and often 'exceeding the speed limit' plays no part in crash causation.
Most speeding is the result of drivers recognising a suitable and safe speed from the immediate conditions. In order to drive safely we all carry out ongoing subconscious risk assessments. When hazards threaten we slow down. When they do not we speed up.
Far from being a problem, this behaviour is absolutely vital to road safety. We must have drivers who adjust their speed to suit the hazard environment. Since the risk assessment process is subconscious, it isn't surprising that drivers are largely unable to properly explain their behaviour.
Campaign founder Paul Smith said: "A 40mph blanket rural speed limit is neither necessary nor desirable. Unnecessarily slow speed limits reduce respect for worthwhile speed limits, deskill driving and can cause dangerous frustration and inattention.
"We have had 'speed kills' road safety policy for over a decade with widespread speed limit reductions and mushrooming speed cameras. Despite the self-congratulatory claims from Department for Transport and the camera partnerships, these policies are an abject failure with road deaths and road crash hospitalisations stubbornly failing to fall. The system is only supported by tortured statistics and oversimplified arguments. The 'slower is safer brigade' have yet to explain why it isn't working after over a decade.
"The authorities must stop denying reality. 'Speed kills' road safety policy has failed comprehensively. We must return to psychologically sound road safety policies based on skills, attitudes and responsibilities. We'll see no improvement in road safety until we do.
"You can't measure safe driving in miles per hour."
The ABD weighs in
Meanwhile, road safety group, the Association of British Drivers, has suggested that Direct Line's survey takes road safety `up a blind alley’. The survey demands a limit of no more than 40mph on all rural roads because of “the high number of fatalities now occurring on country lanes”.
A quick check on accidents and accident rates by road class and severity from Transport Statistics GB 2005 shows that accident rates are much lower on rural roads than urban ones -- 70 accidents per 100 million vehicle/km occur on urban A-roads against 25 on rural A-roads, while 64 accidents per 100 million vehicle/km on other urban roads against 46 on other rural roads.
Direct Line did not produce a supporting analysis but inferred that because 26 per cent of rural drivers surveyed admit to exceeding 60mph speed limits on rural roads, speeding is `one of the main causes of accidents’.
Mark McArthur-Christie, the ABD’s Director of Policy said: “It’s difficult to see the road safety logic behind Direct Line’s rather confused argument. They don’t offer any evidence that the fatal crashes are related to people breaking the 60mph limit -- because there is none. And if breaking the 60 limit were the problem, where is the sense in reducing that limit to 40mph? This reads more like a PR-driven survey than serious road safety.”
McArthur-Christie concluded “We must move away from the view that `the answer’s a blanket speed limit - now what’s the question?’ A safe speed for the conditions varies constantly, from second to second and can be significantly above or below 40mph. Good drivers know and recognise this. Blanket speed limits just increase frustration overtakes, cause drivers to tailgate and reduce respect for speed limits generally. Forcing compliance with such limits reduces attention and stops drivers thinking for themselves - a head on collision between two cars doing 40mph is still likely to be fatal, and speedo watching, brain dead driving makes this more likely on country lanes.”
"
in Pistonheads
P.S: Se quiserem traduzir para português, força com isso.