Hear hear, the average driver should not be prosecuted for driving safely.

The motorway speed limt of 70mph is broken by the vast majority of drivers, given free roads and safe conditions. This potentially criminalises a large percent of the population, yet these roads are safe. Recommended speeds should exist, depending on traffic and other condition.

Setting the limit at 50% is either stupid or malicious, depending on your view of the previous government. The average speed of traffic is always going to be less than the speed limit due to HGVs, tractors, milk floats, and other slow vehicles. Over time this will have the effect of lowering speed limits towards the speed of the slowest vehicle.

"Setting limits at mean speeds criminalises 50% of drivers."

Utter drivel. Have 50% of drivers been prosecuted ? No , i thought not.

The speed limits are clearly marked. That thing in the centre of your dashboard is your speedometer.Now match the two numbers together. Millions of people manage to do that easily every day . If you can't , then get on yer bike.

Absolutely agree. All of the absurd limits imposed on previously National Speed Limit roads since 2006.
Many were imposed against police advice. For example the A515 in Derbyshire.
With long uninterrupted straight sections it is no wonder there is none compliance. There are hazards at the infrequent junctions but all drivers should adjust for this. Don't drive by numbers.
The reality with the 50mph limit is that some people will dutifully comply or, worse, sense the opportunity to dawdle. A whole new set of hazards and risks have been created.
Derbyshire CC's answer is to festoon the road with signs with meaningless twaddle written upon them:
"50-It's for your safety"
"It's 50 for a reason"

The last quote sums up the impede motorists at all cost attitude of the so called public servants that forced the measure through despite compelling objections.

This suggestion is what made sense years ago and still makes sense today. Modern cars also have greater safety margins.

When you pass a speed camera it can read your number plate.
If say 10% of the cash paid in fines at that camera was randomly returned as prizes to motorists who obeyed the (sensible) limit then behaviour and attitudes on our roads would change for the better.

All heavy goods vehicles should be restricted to the first lane (except in an emergency) They play "who can beat the other truck" Pass one lorry only for the one they pass to pass them later! All this does is block traffic and cause accidents. Better still...get all long distance freight on the railway network.

As for speed limits... We no longer ride around in dangerous Morris Minors, cars with inadequate brakes, etc. Yet those cars were not subject to motorway speed limits! Modern speed limits for modern, safer machines.
Speed camera's? The biggest money making racket ever devised...FACT. Bring back the traffic police...

I don't care what the speed limits are, I drive as fast as I want. After all, speed cameras and police are NOT allowed to hide and catch you out, they must be visible from the road. So if you pay attention (and I mean as in really concentrating on what you're doing), you can easily spot them when you're still way out of range of their laser beams, slow down, pass them, speed up again. I only drive below the speed limit if road conditions or traffic mean it would be unsafe to do otherwise. This means I speed most of the time (I don't drive much at rush hour), I have done so for years, and yet have a clean licence. If you don't spot a speed trap and get a ticket, you probably weren't concentrating enough to be driving at that speed and deserve a ticket for driving without due care, if you only get done for speeding consider yourself lucky and next time pay more attention to your LPOV.

Apsolutely agree. Can we not take teh same apprach as the German autobahn with speed limits in some places os 130 km/h (80 mph), but there is no general speed limit. Accident rates are no worse than roads with speed limits.

I disagree. Speed limits are there for order and safety. Driving standards are not exactly high in the UK. Too many drivers are aggressive, who tailgate (even with their children on board) and who actually know little about safe driving. I base this on people I used to see when I was an observer with the IAM. They thought they could pass an advanced test, but I wondered how they had got a licence.

I agree

Agree absolutely. There is decades of experience that setting speed limits at the 85th percentile produces the smoothest traffic flow, least driver frustration and lowest accident rate. The government should not only return to the 85th percentile principle for speed limit setting but should make it compulsory for highway authorities to review their speed limits on that basis and raise them where necessary. At present, highway authorities can ignore the government's 'advice' and set speed limits at any level they like, based on the opinions of amateurs with no expertise in road safety engineering.

I agree absolutely.

I think that there should be more variation wityhin existing limits - for instance several roads that I drive on have a50mph limit. OK not unreasonable where roads are busy, but at 3am (when I often have to drive) why does the same limit need to apply?

Restore all speed limits to those in use BEFORE the Labour Government came to power and take the speed limit setting away from local councils and parish councillors. Only the police have any idea of road safety and what a safe speed for any road should be.

Better Speed Signs Restore it to how it was Having move back to the uk from the EU i find that there is lots of speed cams but very liitle speed signs telling what the speed limit is in that area its so its very hard to no what speed you are not to go over i have taken to have a sat nav only so i dont go over as can just can't keep up with other driver speed as they most of the time are speeding why can they not make it easer for us all (set all of the country same seed limits 20/30 in towns 50/60 on non motorways 70/80 on motorways the lower limits when it is wet same as EU

The 70 mph speed limit on motorways is too low, particularly at times of light traffic. Limits are more realistic elsewhere in Europe.

Over 2,200 people were killed on the roads in the UK last year and more the year before. Excessive speed has repeatedly been shown to be a major factor in lethal accidents and speed is also one of the few ways the police can enforce reasonably safe driving across all vehicle users before incidents involving death and injury take place.

Modern speed limits for modern safer machines? Safer for who? Not for the 1600 child pedestrians killed and injured last year. If councils were restricted to setting speed limits to the speed at which 85% people drive, how could they bring in safety measures and lower speed limits to prevent these deaths and injuries? This change should not be repealed.

@friendlytim, sorry check your facts the governments own figures from the TRL have shown that speed is implicated in only 7% of accidents, the overwhelming cause is through driver error and many pedestrian injury accidents are rooted in being drunk, as for children where were their parents and why weren't they prosecuted for child neglect?

The lobby for increasing speed limits is based largely on arguments about safety i.e. they say they can avoid collisions at speeds they deem suitable.This argument may be relevant on major highways but not so on residential areas where 30 and 40 mph are the norm.Here a major factor is that of quality of life.It is deeply disturbing to live by such a road and have inconsiderate drivers pass at speeds in excess of 50 or higher.I would think that greater than 85 percentile of residents would accept a rigid enforcement of the speed limit past their houses and surely the views of the residents matter more as they are permanent the motorist merely transient

Uh, ok so instead of having highway engineers look at local conditions and any history of accidents when setting speed limits, we just have some formula imposed from on high because it's 'scientifically proven' y'know.

And just coincidentally, this sciency formula would allow us all to drive faster!!

I don't know why you pro-speed campaigners don't just say 'we want to drive fast, and if a few families in their cars or pedestrians get smashed up, it's a price worth paying'. It would be much better than these pathetic attempts to disprove the obvious; that the faster you drive and more likely you are to crash and, the faster the car the more severe the crash.

Well, I've got news for you gentlemen (and it is always men, isn't it? either boy racers or mid life crisis racers), speed limits are heading DOWN guys. 20mph zones will be coming to residential streets near you, lives will be saved and no amount of your bogus statistics will be able to stop it.

Over ten yrs of riding a motorcycle for a living I did approx 1 million miles. I always rode at a speed appropriate to road and traffic conditions but hardly ever looked at my speedo. At the end of that period I had a clean licence. Then along came speed cameras!

I am totally in favour. Speed limits are often, in the opinion of many, far too low, and seem to be currently being used simply to reduce traffic speeds, often for no good reason. We need to return to methodical and evidence based speed limit setting which does not by definition criminalise half of all motorists, of whom the vast majority are safe and competent drivers. This measure would allow the public to respect speed limits much more.

The police also need to be allowed a stronger voice in speed limit setting rather than local councils, as only the police are able to make a well-informed judgement regarding safety, and they will be responsible for the enforcement of any limits. It is absurd that councils are allowed any influence whatsoever.

100% agree, speed limits are being arbitrarily lowered so "safety" cameras can make more money.

The slower the traffic, the more cars there are on the road because the cars spend longer on the road.

The flow of traffic should decide the speed. wreckless people and wreckless driving and inconsiderate driving should be penalized.

A fast car driving when the road is quiet is not wreckless.

@friendlytim

With all due respect it isn't just motorists that need to contribute to road safety. I agree there is an ignorant section of motorists but there are plenty of idiot cyclists and pedestrians. The highway code is intended advice for all.

IT IS STILL ILLEGAL TO CYCLE ON A FOOTPATH OR ACROSS A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING.
CYCLING WITHOUT LIGHTS AFTER DARK IS A PROSECUTABLE OFFENCE AND PUTS OTHER ROAD USERS AT RISK.

@CaptainStanley

I have in my possession a substantial file containing the 'logic' of local authority officials. Engineers they are not. Officious anti-car busibodies they are. The reason they work for a local authority is because they would struggle to be useful elsewhere.

Agree 85th percentile

If local authorities want motorists to drive more slowly on a stretch of road they need to change the archetecture of the road so people don't WANT to drive too fast. Then speed cameras would be completely unnecessary and prosecutions would be rarely necessay because speeding wouldn't happen. Make the roads two narrow lanes & put in some bends and people slow down naturally.

Way too many spurious limits on perfectly safe roads. If we want to reduce RTAs, make the training and tests more stringent. Arbitrary and patently too low speed limits just build up frustration in drivers, making them less safe to be on the road with.

Agree completely - bring back common sense to speed limits and speed enforcement(and everything else!). 50mph rural limits are the work of political idiots. They wasted £1 million of taxpayers money introducing them here in Warwickshire - but have they stopped death and serious injury on the roads? No.

Far better to concentrate on raising driving standards rather than lowering speed limits.

Agree completely - bring back common sense to speed limits and speed enforcement(and everything else!). 50mph rural limits are the work of political idiots. They wasted £1 million of taxpayers money introducing them here in Warwickshire - but have they stopped death and serious injury on the roads? No.

Far better to concentrate on raising driving standards rather than lowering speed limits.

85th percentile sounds much more reasonable than 50th as this is a limit not average speed setting.

Low speed limits are a thoughtless and inappropriate way of trying to improve road safety. They also criminalise motorists who are otherwise law abiding.

I agree that 85th percentile may restore some respect for speed limits.

In recent years there has been a sustained campaign against the use of private vehicle speed controls have been part of this campaign.

Now it would be sensible to have no speed limits but prosecute dangerous driving, sensible but difficult so most (all) countries have gone for a system speed limits. However as vehicles have improved it does make sense that speed limits have been reduced.

Restoring the link between speed limits and the 85th percentile speed would mean speed limits that road users could respect and understand. it is not as if the reductions in speed limits have improved road safety.

less law would be better, get rid of all speed limits and abolishing comprehensive insurance is my preferred option.

Spot on

Agree that the 85th percentile rule should be reinstated and circular 01/06 should be reissued without reference to mean speeds.

In addition to the comments above setting the speed limit at the mean speed for all vehicles on the road also means that slower vehicles such as HGVs will lower the mean speed. The result is that the speed limit will be set lower than what more than 50% of car drivers consider a safe speed. A similar effect is caused by a line of vehicles follwing a slower vehicle. Just because a car driver may be following a lorry at 40mph this does not mean the car driver considers it unsafe to drive the road at 50 or 60mph. This approach to speed limits is criminalising the majority of the public. Speeds are also likely to be lower in busy periods of the day reducing the mean speed for the road. This results in what the vast majoirty of drivers consider a safe speed at quieter times of day being illegal.

Agree that the 85th percentile rule should be reinstated and circular 01/06 should be reissued without reference to mean speeds.

In addition to the comments above setting the speed limit at the mean speed for all vehicles on the road also means that slower vehicles such as HGVs will lower the mean speed. The result is that the speed limit will be set lower than what more than 50% of car drivers consider a safe speed. A similar effect is caused by a line of vehicles follwing a slower vehicle. Just because a car driver may be following a lorry at 40mph this does not mean the car driver considers it unsafe to drive the road at 50 or 60mph. This approach to speed limits is criminalising the majority of the public. Speeds are also likely to be lower in busy periods of the day reducing the mean speed for the road. This results in what the vast majoirty of drivers consider a safe speed at quieter times of day being illegal.

Agreed. The current policy has simply turned me from occasional criminal into regular criminal. It has not changed my driving speed. I have passed my advanced driving test and I drive at a safe speed for the road and conditions which is often above the speed limit now.

The arbitrary limit set by a bureaucrat has become of no consequence to me. I now treat limits as advisory only. My first observation has now been to spot cameras and speed traps. When I have checked that I look for old ladies and children. This is wrong but it is the unintended consequence of an unwarranted war on speed.

Speed is only the defining factor in 5% of accidents. We should be investing in better driver training and creating visibility on our roads, not continual speed reduction.

Here's a sobering fact, not a single one of the drivers that earn themselves the accolade of a speeding ticket have hurt anyone. When did we elect a government that should prosecute is for not causing any harm? There used to be a concept of common law (no loss or harm to others). Now it is the law of statute which punishes us when we MIGHT cause harm (but usually - in 99,999 times out of 100,000, don't).

The game is now not being scared about breaking the law, it is about being scared of getting caught when I do break the law. As such I am investing in technology to help me make good safe progress on roads, above the speed limit, without getting flashed or gunned.

The game is on.

Agree. Also there should be some form of standardisation and enforcement of this.I get annoyed when I see a 30mph speed limit applied to a relatively wide straight road through a village, a road which has a footpath both sides and houses located far from the road. The next village has a narrow road, no footpaths and several bends. Of course, this section has a 40mph limit. There appears to no logic to the setting of speed limits.

I am sure people can come up with many similar cases, travelling from one part of the country to another one can see many cases of what one can only describe as arbitarily limits set to speed.

Agree. Also there should be some form of standardisation and enforcement of this.I get annoyed when I see a 30mph speed limit applied to a relatively wide straight road through a village, a road which has a footpath both sides and houses located far from the road. The next village has a narrow road, no footpaths and several bends. Of course, this section has a 40mph limit. There appears to no logic to the setting of speed limits.

I am sure people can come up with many similar cases, travelling from one part of the country to another one can see many cases of what one can only describe as arbitarily limits set to speed.

Those driving at 70mph on the motorway are actually at danger as the vast majority exceed this on a regular and consistent basis.

There are some here suggesting that if you can't drive to the speed limit then you shouldn't drive ... one word to them.. THINK!

We're talking about what the limit is set at and yes, people do drive to it which is why 50% of drivers are not prosecuted.
But means that half of the people are driving slower than a comfortable speed which is usually the speed which causes least accidents.

This also means that if you are made to drive slower than you would naturally on safe roads, you lose respect for the limit meaning that it can't warn of dangers as well.

If you drive to your speedo based on the number on the sign and think this is the way to drive safe then you should have your licence removed asap.

"Now it would be sensible to have no speed limits but prosecute dangerous driving"

That's basically the system they use on rural roads on the Isle of Man. While there are speed limits in towns etc (which I think most of us would agree is sensible) there are no limits outside built up areas. Drive fast and sensibly and you're OK, but drive like a twat and the police will have you.

This system not only works on the Ilse of Man but also worked in Montana. Due to a legal quirk, for a time Montana had no numerical speed limits outside towns. People could drive at a speed they thought appropriate, and so long as the police were happy with your driving you were fine. During this period Montana had its lowest accident rate ever. Then the 'speed kills' types had speed limits introduced - and the accident rate went up.

If there must be cameras, why can't they be made to sense the density of traffic on the road and thus what is an appropriate speed at the time?

FFS why are people so anal about absolute speed.
I drive 25000 (typical) miles per year on single carriageway roads. I'm not slow but I can compensate for the odd muppet that has poor observational skills when emerging from a junction. I'll be driving at 20mph in the snow/ice as I see fit.

I can think of a dangerous junction or two that Derbyshire County Council have ignored for better engineering. So obvious but the petty anti-car/biker agenda has to persist according to them.................................

It's often easy to think that it is safe to drive above a speed limit but other road users make judgements about reversing out of drives, opening car doors, crossing the road, etc. on an assumption as to how much time they have and don't expect a car to suddenly appear at 50mph in a 30mph zone, even if to the driver the road looked deserted.

There are many speed signs in bad positions which give a false impression, eg a 50 at the end of a 30 zone makes one assume that it is safe to accelerate yet just round a corner may be a roundabout. Most speed limits are high enough.

Quote from johng "It's often easy to think that it is safe to drive above a speed limit but other road users make judgements about reversing out of drives, opening car doors, crossing the road, etc. on an assumption as to how much time they have and don't expect a car to suddenly appear at 50mph in a 30mph zone"

Good point John, and I suspect you'll find a lot of the 'pro speed' drivers on here probably wouldn't do 50mph in a 30 zone for those sorts of reasons. Persoanlly I'm all in favour of keeping speeds down (to sensible levels) in built up areas.

Our argument (well mine certainly) is about stupidy low speed limits that fly in the face of recommendations by road engineers being set purely for political reasons - mainly on rural roads. We now find roads that have been 60mph for decades with no major problems now having 50mph or even 40mph limits imposed on them just because a few politicians and clueless idiots want it. Like the post says - bring back the 85 percentile.

Our road traffic policy and its enforcement is as inappropriate as those for drugs and immigration, but they are untouchable sacred cows for politicians. While all these subjects need radical reform, regrettably what we have to put up with is a sop to the feeble-minded and to the largest grouping within the voting populous – the Mail and Express reading blue-rinse and grey hair brigade.

Although some contributors here disagree it is a provable scientific fact that the 85th percentile approach to speed limits provides the safest roads. It is bad enough that we risk lives by not applying the 85th principle, we let amateur local do-gooder councillors apply speed limits willy-nilly without nationwide guidelines. The traffic accident statistics are laundered so much that they become worthless. It turns out that these roadside signs of the “23 Injuries In The Last 12 Months” type include accidents such as children trapping their fingers in the car door after having a wee-wee in a lay-by and that the majority of accidents involving pedestrians in town centres are caused by goods vehicles reversing.

What we need is an body, at arms length from government (particularly of the local variety), to lay down a national strategy to speed limits, survey our roads and set the correct limit in the correct location. Some limits may go down, some up, abut at least their would be consistency and logical professional application.

But there is so much more to road traffic safety and it is so short-sighted that we rely almost solely on speed control. Tail-gaters, motorway under-takers, non-signallers and the spatially unaware all terrify me much more than someone doing a few more miles an hour than some arbitrary limit. It’s time to get real and admit that our driver training is the root cause of many of the accidents on our roads. Firstly I would raise the driving age to 18 thereby removing one seventh of the 18-25 age group which insurers say are the worst drivers and if they are too young to vote at 17 why are they allowed to drive ? I’d raise the driving test pass standard to that of the Advanced Driver level and make driving lessons span over at least two seasons of the year to ensure learners are taught how to drive during day and night times, as well as in good and bad weather. Finally, I believe that everyone should have to re-take a driving test every ten years, with the associated training if necessary, to keep up their competency and to adjust to ever increasing traffic flows.

Anyone that finds themselves in broad agreement with this idea might want to read:

http://www.abd.org.uk/jjleeming.htm

JJ Leeming was a traffic engineer who wrote a book in the 60s called "road accidents: prevent or punish?" explaining how road improvements and sensible (aka 85%ile) speed limits make for much safer roads than punitive motoring laws do.

Sadly, no one listened...

I hope that all the idiots in local highways depts who think that lower limits mean safer roads are reading this...YOU ARE WRONG and the majority of sensible, safe motorists know this...WHY DON'T YOU????

Fully support this idea. We need to get rid of the enormous bureaucracy now in place to impose and collect fines on drivers for exceeding silly speed limits which serve no purpose. Let's put those bureaucrats out of work so that they can get real jobs which contribute to the economy and to society.

Any idea why this has been tagged "child abuse"?

Perhaps its because speeding drivers kill and maim hundreds of children every year, more than all the drug dealers, paedophiles and hooded thugs put together.

One way to reduce this sickening toll would be to reduce speed limits and properly enforce them.

Captainstanley said "speeding drivers kill and maim hundreds of children every year, more than all the drug dealers, paedophiles and hooded thugs put together. One way to reduce this sickening toll would be to reduce speed limits and properly enforce them."

Or considering that in reality most accidents involving cars and pedestrians are actually the fault of the pedestrian, a better way would be to teach children not to step/run out in front of traffic so they don't get hit in the first place.

I was not aware of this idiotic change of policy however it explaines the hundreds of thousands of pounds squandered by my local authority on endless roadsigns no one want needs or pays any attention to.

I can think of more than one stretch or road that has been made more dangerous as a result too. On one section, where once cars went through 40mph and national speed limit sections day in day out without any problems, changing to 30mph and 40mph respectively now results in cars hitting far higher speeds as frustrated drivers try to get past the pendants doing 28mph to 38mph.

While the section was perfectly safe at the original speeds it is certainly not safe for such overtaking due to hidden turns. Sooner or later someone will dies on this road in the interests of 'safety'

Lets be clear. There is not such thing as total safety on the roads. That is not to say that we should not look at reasonable steps that will saves lives but in recent years it has become clear that reason was no longer part of the equation

Hang on, lets think about this properly ... You say set the speed limit at the level below which 85% of people would drive? Monday, 100 motorists. You ban 15 of them for speeding. Tuesday, there are 85 drivers 13 of whom will be going faster than the other 72. Wednesday, you're down to 61 drivers 9 of whom ... you get the idea.

This 85% brainwave doesn't add up.

Not only should the 85th percentile be enshrined in law, there should be an addition to stop politicians from fiddling with speed limits for their own, nefarious purposes.

"Monday, 100 motorists. You ban 15 of them for speeding. "
But you don't.
You include them in when you're deciding what people WOULD do if there was no limit.

"Excessive speed has repeatedly been shown to be a major factor in lethal accidents"

But exceeding the speed limit causes only about 7% of accidents! Pic your stats!

It's a shame that some who have commented do not understand the maths. For one thing it is only possible to set a speed limit to be appropriate to the circumstances if the measurements of current speed are taken BEFORE any limit is applied to the road. That allows the NATURAL speed for the road to be determined. By 'natural' I mean the speed that a reasonable, good driver might adopt in the conditions.
When the NATURAL mean speed has been calculated (by measuring thousands of vehicle speeds)it is possible to post an appropriate speed limit. Using the mean, 50 percentile speed results in half the drivers needing to drive slower, sometimes much slower, than they feel is natural. Inevitably the faster drivers will be even more likely to ignore the posted limit. An exacerbating factor is that the authorities have to use speed limits 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70. If the natural 'mean' speed for a road is 'say' 38 mph the limit is rounded down to 30 which results in perhaps 70% of driver having to drive slower than they feel is correct for the road.
Using the 85th percentile speed is a much more realistic tool and aims to reduce the speed of only the fastest and most dangerous driver. Posting say 40 mph on the road with a mean NATURAL speed of 38 will result in well under 50% needing to inhibit their natural speed. Most will think, "it's a bit slow but 40mph is OK" Those same people would ignore a 30mph limit and might drive at 50mph or more. I leave it up to the reader to decide which speed is the most effective.
It has been proven that drivers who drive slightly faster than the mean speed have fewer accidents and this could be because they are more alert. However that is an aside.
Let's not forget too, this is about safety not revenue.
As I said at the beginning it's no good trying to set a speed limit by measuring vehicle speeds if a limit is already in force. The results will be nonsense. We'll all end up at walking speed.

Most people drive responsibly. If there were no speed limits at all, most people would not suddenly start tearing around in an unsafe manner. The few who would are probably the same few who ignore limits anyway.

From my own experience, I used to find that the speed I naturally selected for myself on any given road was usually under the posted limit. Nowadays I find it very rarely under and have to make a deliberate effort to drive more slowly. I don't think I have become more reckless as I have matured - far from it. I have not had an accident in several decades of driving, which might not mean I am a good driver but I think it fair to say I'm not a reckless idiot.

Speed limits have been getting lower and lower with no great benefit except to the treasury from all the camera fines. Time to treat people with respect and trust their judgement: most get it right without enforcement.

As both a car driver and a former traffic engineer the 85%ile criterion has always seemed fair. I used to be able to drive at an appropriate speed according to the character of the road. Now the applied speed limits appear to be arbitrary and indeed sometimes are, even with regard to the 50%ile criterion.

Local agitators have more influence with traffic authorities whereas drivers seldom know that a speed limit is to be imposed until it happens. They cannot be expected to read leagal notices posted int the street and the decision makers receive an unbalanced response to published proposals.

I am mindful that changing a speed limit costs money both in terms of new signing and administration. At a time of financial constraint this should not be an impediment to restoring the status quo ante. At least a fast track legal process could be established whereby a previous speed limit could be brought back with limited administeation.