New Transport Secretary: Speeding kills, and road safety is my priority

Is it not about time that we ended the debate about whether speed kills or not?

In some cases, speed will be a main contributory factor to an accident - in others it will not.

For those interested in why there's another debate (about speed cameras), read helen Wells:

http://readinglists.brunel.ac.uk/items/C14EC5D3-4A3B-B7EC-890A-6DF8667C7...

... and for those interested in more socially acceptable means of top speed control, go to the presentations listed in the column on the right hand side of the page:

http://www.ice.org.uk/nearyou/UK-Regions/Scotland/Specialist-Areas/Munic...

under the heading "ISA Speed Management 30 March 2012".

Automatic detedtion and prosecution is NOT the answer. Intelligent Speed Adaptation may be ... or shall we wait for the non-colliding vehicle?

Enforcement is the key. Another Transport Secretary, another set of claims that will not be met by someone who will be shifted into another role within 12 months. Will the police get the investment required for the staffing to allow the enforcement that is needed? Umm, no. Will there be a concerted road safety awareness effort to highlight the risks to vulnerable road users (cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians) posed by inattentive and aggressive driving? Will there be a campaign of tackling the cause of accidents, bad driving, rather than trying to apply a sticking plaster over the effects and blaming the victim by suggesting that high viz or helmet use would save lives? No, I doubt it.

Like I said, another minister, another set of grandiose claims. I give him 12 months at most.

What is absolutely needed is much more enforcement. What really discourages people from breaking rules is not the severity of punishment, but the likelihood of being caught.

I don't drive daily, as I cycle commute. However, this "speed kills" stuff is counter-productively simplistic.

Its worst effect is that it encourages absolutism and seems to result in much of the focus on speeding being on the numerically highest infringements. It leads to ridiculous situations where much is made of drivers who do 100+ mph on motorway grade roads, and where a lot of the enforcement focuses on these motorways and fast, two-lane dual-carriageways (which are all but motorways). Yet pretty much nothing is done about the incredible number of drivers doing 40mph in dense urban areas.

100 mph on a 70 mph motorway, and 40 mph in a 30 mph zone are, in terms of proportionate speed and energy excess, identical transgressions. However, the motorway is a far safer road, the transgression is less likely to affect anyone. The 30 mph road is much riskier, likely to have pedestrians, cyclists and children. Even if no accident occurs, just the presence of the speeding motorist makes the road feel much more dangerous and less pleasant to the non-motorised road users.

We need to start focusing enforcement on the roads where it makes the most difference - the *slower* roads, the roads where non-motorised traffic is common. To do this we need to stop caring so much about absolute speeds. We need to start treating the "10 mph over in a 30 zone" offence as an equally serious offence as the "30 mph over on a 70 mph motorway", perhaps even as a more serious offence.

Statistically, few people die on motorways, and lots die on urban and sub-urban roads. The "speed kills" slogan misleadingly misdirects attention to the fast roads, IMO. The focus on speeds needs to be on the slower roads.

Speed bloody well does kill. The faster you go, the less-avoidable collisions are, the bigger the mess and much more fatal the likely outcome.

You all know the science behind impact survivability, E = M x V squared. Double the speed, quadruple the force yadda yadda...

Lower speed limits and bloody harsh enforcement are absolutely the answer, until we get Dutch-style self-enforcing behaviour-changing infrastructure.

The only people objecting to lower limits in urban areas have to be those who don't like the idea of being asked to slow down around kids, cyclists and pedestrians. Black & white.

if we are being really pedantic, you are totally correct in saying that speed doesnt kill. rather its the force generated at impact that kills.

When two road users collide, it is because one or both didn't have the time to take evasive action. The probability of a fatality increases dramatically at speeds in excess of 20 mph – isn't the stat 80% survival chance at 20 mph and only 20% chance of survival at 30 mph and above?

Therefore, lower speeds for complicated/busy urban roads has to be part of the answer.

We know that when we cycle at 15 mph in a 30 mph limit, we almost always catch up with the same cars at the next junction. So what's the point in letting them accelerate to 30 mph when going at 20 mph wouldn't add to their journey time but would make conditions safer for pedestrians, cyclists and all other vulnerable road users?

AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!

Speed does not kill. Speed limits do not (by themselves) improve safety. Speed enforcement is not the answer.

Poor driving kills, but poor driving cannot be identified by number on a stick or policed by a yellow box.

I think you might have missed the word "police" or "officers" from Chris Peck's quote in the last paragraph (after the word "traffic").