01-03-2017, 06:57 PM
In [url=http://cb1100forum.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=10069&pid=160453#pid160453]another thread I made mention of ‘speed-limited corners’. Rolls asked me:
My short answer was no, but I answered it in a reflective frame of mind early in the morning and found I’d written a great deal more than was relevant to that thread. I didn't post it at the time, but it occurred to me it might amuse northern hemisphere members, confined by snow and filthy weather to their haciendas, to ponder the question of speed limits.
So, with a warning that this is a ramble, my longer answer to Rolls’ question went something like this:
Australian Police services and traffic management agencies have got it into their heads that speed is the cause of nearly every traffic accident. I suppose, in a way, there's a rational basis for this view: if you weren't moving, you couldn't have an accident. From that, I suppose it follows that, given you were moving, had you been moving more slowly, the consequences of crashing would have been less severe. It’s not altogether persuasive.
As a result Australian police and traffic regulators have for years been very focussed on keeping speed down. Patrols and radars are used lots and anything much more than 2 or 3 kph over the limit will earn you a fine and a loss of demerit points. The more over the limit drivers are travelling, the greater the penalty. There’s not the tolerance US riders report for breaches of the speed limit.
Recently there seems to have been a rash of reducing speed limits on any section of road where there have been accidents. When it happens on a popular motorcycle road, there are howls of protest from motorcyclists. The change is effected by signage and there is then also increased enforcement activity, usually via patrols or mobile speed cameras. On roads around cities—like the Old Pacific Highway north of Sydney and the Mt Nebo Road near Brisbane—frequent patrols are said to spoil the fun of riders who want to race through the corners as quickly as they can. On country roads, there's less enforcement than on the freeways where there are lots of speed cameras, both fixed and mobile. As an aside, while, by law, motorists must be advised of the presence of fixed speed cameras—presumably so they can slow down and not offend—curiously the cameras still seem to catch an awful lot of speeding drivers.
There is another school of thought common amongst motorcyclists: any set of corners sufficiently attractive to motorcyclists in numbers and in or on which there are consequently lots of accidents must immediately have the speed limit reduced to spoil everyone else's fun. A happy by-product for authorities is that speed traps can then be used to raise much-needed revenue. That view tends to hold that any form of traffic law enforcement is more about revenue raising than road safety.
I'm not sure I buy either thesis. It's asserted from time to time that there’s not really any good evidence about the nexus between speed and accidents. But I really don’t know; I’ve not really looked into it. Many accidents—whatever the cause—may have been less severe if people had been going more slowly. But that’s a statement of the bleeding obvious rather than having any form evidence base.
It’s also the case that many of those who argue they are being inconvenienced in some way tend to assume they’re the only person who’s view matters. They’re competent to drive the road higher than the posted speed limit, so why should it be so low? They forget, I think, that road usage is a complex system involving drivers, their behaviour and ever-changing conditions that authorities must address as best they can.
I’m also not persuaded police consider only revenue raising. Traffic offences are seen by the community as serious. If you think that’s a joke, see the levels of fines and demerit points for many breaches of traffic regulations. Police have a job to do it’s fair for them to get on and do it. Do they exercise enough discretion? Who knows? Such questions are difficult: we’ll never really know how much discretion is exercised. Are the laws unreasonable and silly? Yes, many of them are, but that’s hardly the police’s fault. There are many others involved in that policy process. Ultimately the politicians need to take responsibility for the state of the statute book.
Police and emergency services workers constantly have to deal with the hideous consequences of road accidents. They deserve some sympathy in all this. If they can reduce the number of times they have to clean up accident sites and then tell some poor person their child or significant other won't be coming home, it’s reasonable to expect they will do so.
Whether all this is the over-zealous encroachment of the nanny state is, if course, another consideration. I’m not going there on an international forum as there are too many cultural considerations to make much sense of it. I know it’s a faint hope, but it would be nice if anyone who feels the urge to respond to this ramble could stay away from this tricky question.
My short answer was no, but I answered it in a reflective frame of mind early in the morning and found I’d written a great deal more than was relevant to that thread. I didn't post it at the time, but it occurred to me it might amuse northern hemisphere members, confined by snow and filthy weather to their haciendas, to ponder the question of speed limits.
So, with a warning that this is a ramble, my longer answer to Rolls’ question went something like this:
Australian Police services and traffic management agencies have got it into their heads that speed is the cause of nearly every traffic accident. I suppose, in a way, there's a rational basis for this view: if you weren't moving, you couldn't have an accident. From that, I suppose it follows that, given you were moving, had you been moving more slowly, the consequences of crashing would have been less severe. It’s not altogether persuasive.
As a result Australian police and traffic regulators have for years been very focussed on keeping speed down. Patrols and radars are used lots and anything much more than 2 or 3 kph over the limit will earn you a fine and a loss of demerit points. The more over the limit drivers are travelling, the greater the penalty. There’s not the tolerance US riders report for breaches of the speed limit.
Recently there seems to have been a rash of reducing speed limits on any section of road where there have been accidents. When it happens on a popular motorcycle road, there are howls of protest from motorcyclists. The change is effected by signage and there is then also increased enforcement activity, usually via patrols or mobile speed cameras. On roads around cities—like the Old Pacific Highway north of Sydney and the Mt Nebo Road near Brisbane—frequent patrols are said to spoil the fun of riders who want to race through the corners as quickly as they can. On country roads, there's less enforcement than on the freeways where there are lots of speed cameras, both fixed and mobile. As an aside, while, by law, motorists must be advised of the presence of fixed speed cameras—presumably so they can slow down and not offend—curiously the cameras still seem to catch an awful lot of speeding drivers.
There is another school of thought common amongst motorcyclists: any set of corners sufficiently attractive to motorcyclists in numbers and in or on which there are consequently lots of accidents must immediately have the speed limit reduced to spoil everyone else's fun. A happy by-product for authorities is that speed traps can then be used to raise much-needed revenue. That view tends to hold that any form of traffic law enforcement is more about revenue raising than road safety.
I'm not sure I buy either thesis. It's asserted from time to time that there’s not really any good evidence about the nexus between speed and accidents. But I really don’t know; I’ve not really looked into it. Many accidents—whatever the cause—may have been less severe if people had been going more slowly. But that’s a statement of the bleeding obvious rather than having any form evidence base.
It’s also the case that many of those who argue they are being inconvenienced in some way tend to assume they’re the only person who’s view matters. They’re competent to drive the road higher than the posted speed limit, so why should it be so low? They forget, I think, that road usage is a complex system involving drivers, their behaviour and ever-changing conditions that authorities must address as best they can.
I’m also not persuaded police consider only revenue raising. Traffic offences are seen by the community as serious. If you think that’s a joke, see the levels of fines and demerit points for many breaches of traffic regulations. Police have a job to do it’s fair for them to get on and do it. Do they exercise enough discretion? Who knows? Such questions are difficult: we’ll never really know how much discretion is exercised. Are the laws unreasonable and silly? Yes, many of them are, but that’s hardly the police’s fault. There are many others involved in that policy process. Ultimately the politicians need to take responsibility for the state of the statute book.
Police and emergency services workers constantly have to deal with the hideous consequences of road accidents. They deserve some sympathy in all this. If they can reduce the number of times they have to clean up accident sites and then tell some poor person their child or significant other won't be coming home, it’s reasonable to expect they will do so.
Whether all this is the over-zealous encroachment of the nanny state is, if course, another consideration. I’m not going there on an international forum as there are too many cultural considerations to make much sense of it. I know it’s a faint hope, but it would be nice if anyone who feels the urge to respond to this ramble could stay away from this tricky question.
