Speed Limits

“Something must be done. This is something. Therefore we must do it.” Yes Minister Jim Hacker’s famous response. Last week’s commotion about 40 limits is just the same. Hapless Jim Hacker - hapless real-life Tom Fraser – Minister of Transport who brought in the 70mph limit at Christmas 1965, “doing something” about motorway accidents in fog.

They weren’t 100mph crashes. Hardly anybody was doing more than 50. It was a fatuous response yet, astonishingly, voters liked it. Voters love speed limits. The average voter would bring back capital punishment and now we have a government that before the election promised not to wage war on motorists, reacting the same way the socialist dirigiste useless Fraser did.

Only months ago it was talking about an 80mph limit. I didn’t believe it then and I don’t believe it now. Road casualties are up; they want to be seen Doing Something.

Yes Minister, they really are all the same.

Readers' letters


1985 Ford Sierra RS Cosworth

The Guardian readers’ letters were the rudest. I covered motor racing for the newpaper in the 1960s and 1970s. Pioneering stuff. Motor racing seldom made sports pages. John Samuel, sports editor recently presented with the Doug Gardner Award, wanted to be “inclusive”. He asked Adam Raphael, the motoring correspondent who went on to be a notable political writer, to cover racing. Adam didn’t want to and asked Barrie Gill, of the new (1964) Sun who might. Gill kindly suggested me.

I enjoyed The Guardian. It was demanding on writing style and I did the motoring column sometimes as well. I didn’t know about newspaper writing, had no formal training; I made it up as I went along. By good fortune John Samuel was patient. Just as fortunately perhaps, he had nobody else on hand who knew anything about motor racing.

There was a broad church of student readers with whom I got on well. But when I was critical in the motoring column of the 70mph speed limit Guardianistas were furious. Prejudiced and abusive the roundheads went after me. They seemed to suspect that not only did I not share their dirigisme, but also (probably alone of Guardian contributors) I was never a member of a trade union. They, and readers of The Obsever, nevertheless stuck by me for 15 years.

It was The Grauniad when I started with it. Compositry was a weakness on a small patch of floor in Grays Inn Road. Losing £120,000 a day now, they say. That’s what happens, you see...

Sierra Sapphire. Cosworth 4x4 was a development.

Sometimes it was as well not to tell readers absolutely everything. I did not disclose, even to my broader-minded Sunday Times readers in 1990 how, testing the Sierra Sapphire Cosworth in Spain, my former colleague from The Motor, Roger Bell in the passenger’s seat, pointed skywards. We were directly under the flight path to an airport and he was indicating a Boeing 747 overhead, seemingly stationary. We were both doing 150mph.

The Boeing was getting down to its landing speed approaching the runway. We were enjoying racing car speeds on an open road. Roger had been with the test team for the E-type Jaguar. In 1961, 150mph was so rare for a production car they put on crash helmets and used racing tyres. Here we were, on a sunny day, doing it in a production saloon Ford. Safe as houses at twice what the hapless Tom Fraser, Minister of Transport thought so perilous in 1965.


I didn't do 150mph in this E-type, one of the first I drove, at the Glasgow Motor Show following its introduction in Geneva. That's me on the right, with Jaguar apprentice Clive Martin outside the Hamilton newspaper that ran my first motoring column.

Speed limit research


Speed limits should be related to the design speed of a road. Low limits on roads built for high speeds are likely to be disregarded, resulting in higher speeds than if a realistic limit is imposed. The Transport Research Laboratory TRL concluded in 1994 that changing the speed limit on motorways to 80mph might not alter traffic speeds by much. It might rise by about 3-4mph provided drivers feel the limit is reasonable. “Although there is no experimental evidence that raised speed limits result in lower speeds ... such effects are said to occur. The explanation ... has to do with the driving public's response to the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the limit. If the limit is raised to something more appropriate to the design speed of the road, then ... some drivers will respond by observing it and speeds fall.”

The TRL found evidence that “drivers driving much faster or much slower than the general traffic stream are more likely to be involved in accidents.” The speed traffic is actually doing is less important than making sure all the vehicles are going about the same speed in relation to one another.

Analysis of the effect of speed on accidents has always been problematical and the TRL’s findings endorses the view that blanket limits can sometimes be unproductive. Limits should reflect the dangers of individual stretches of road and there would be more benefit from reducing the speed of the fastest drivers than reducing speeds for all drivers. This is especially true for urban roads where engineering and enforcement targeting the fastest drivers tends to work.

In a report compiled in 2000 the TRL said: “The scope for reducing accidents by means of speed management depends on the operational characteristics of the road. The often-quoted broad result that a ‘5% reduction in accident frequency results per 1mph reduction in average speed’ has been investigated carefully; although it remains a robust general rule, the percentage reduction in accident frequency per 1mph reduction has been shown to vary according to road type and average traffic speed. It is: about 6% for urban roads with low average speeds; about 4% for medium speed urban roads and lower speed rural main roads; about 3% for the higher speed urban roads and rural main roads. In urban areas the potential for accident reduction is greatest on those roads with low average speeds. These are typically busy main roads in towns with high levels of pedestrian activity, wide variation in speeds, and high accident frequencies.”

The Driving Test

You have to assume both drivers of this 1940s Ford Prefect agreed, in general, which way they wanted to go. Experimental, but ultimately unsuccessful driving school car.
Even veterans could learn from The Driving Test, a 100 minute DVD by Brian M Stratton. This is more than a primer to get L drivers through their test. It is that too, with advice on everything from pre-test nerves to what you should do if you encounter a bin lorry during it. It is also a revision course for experienced drivers and I strongly recommend it. Brian Stratton is an instructor who trained with the Driving Standards Agency, which sets the driving test, giving him a special insight into what examiners expect.

The driving test has certainly developed over the years, with up to a quarter of the 40 minutes or so it takes, given to “independent driving”. This furnishes candidates with a proper driving task, going from here to there by following a route. It can mean simply navigating by road signs or by a diagram on a card. Wasn’t like that in my day. You went where the officer said. It’s much more grown-up nowadays.

Yet how often one hears drivers cheerfully admit they wouldn’t pass their driving test now. Exasperating. They should get this DVD and go through the dummy specimen test with a “candidate” providing a commentary about what he is doing. Invaluable. And if anyone claims to have learnt nothing from watching, they are either being untruthful or they are dangerous. It is scarcely surprising young people fail the test more often than they did when I was 17. The standard is much higher.

Stratton’s DVD is entertaining. There is great footage of a 1935 driving test, with a 10HP Model C Ford and a V8 carefully avoiding one another. Certainly the best £10 any L-driver will spend. Go to instructor-training.co.uk or amazon.co.uk. The Driving Test, Essential Information, Brian M Stratton.

Safety Fast


1940's reminder: Second World War Jeep at Goodwood
Speeding has become a scapegoat. Myth and folklore has led to it being blamed for every accident while real causes are neglected. Police, local authorities, safety campaigners and shrill lobbyists erect flashing signals and create camera partnerships to persuade voters something is being done about safety. It is a fraud. Speed laws provide every self-righteous roundhead and fretting dirgiste with political capital.

Populist polls would restore hanging. The Mob would dance round the guillotine. It is the same with speeding. When I was a parish councillor, pushing for a 20mph speed limit through the village would have made me popular. There was always agitation about, “accidents waiting to happen.” They never did of course. The street was perfectly safe; police did checks showing nearly everybody drove well within the limit and accidents were unknown.

Where I live now is being similarly lobbied and I can see why. Enormous trucks coming through at 50mph is scary, I hate them. Yet not many accidents are caused by driving too fast. Some 57% are due to drivers, 27% to combinations of roadway and driver, 6% to combined vehicle and driver, 3% solely to roadways. Combined roadway, driver and vehicle accounts for 3%, which leaves 2% solely to vehicles. The last 1% is down to combined roadway and vehicles. The drivers’ 57% is down to inattention, bad judgement at junctions, distraction, fatigue, losing control in bad weather and other causes. Excessive speed scarcely features. The money, time and effort expended on speeders is largely wasted. It would be far better devoted to driver training and testing to IAM standards.

Speeding is not the first safety myth. In 1992 even Rospa challenged a hoary old legend.
Sunday Times: Motoring, 30 August 1992
Blaming the rise in road deaths during 1941 on the blackout is wrong, according to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA). New research shows it was fewer traffic police and a withdrawal of safety propaganda that led to 9,169 fatalities on British roads in the second year of war.
The historian A D Harvey claims in the current issue of ROSPA's magazine Care on the Road, that the casualty rate slowed in 1942 and 1943, when the black-out with its dimly-lit streets and hooded headlights was still in force.
Harvey's research reveals that the only changes were more policing, and better safety propaganda. Similar remedies applied now could have telling effects.
The carnage of the 1930s, with over 7,000 deaths a year led to the introduction of The Highway Code, but even this failed to stem the destruction. In desperation the Minister of Transport Leslie Hore-Belisha, imposed the 30mph speed limit, set up pedestrian crossings, and brought in the driving test.
Fatal casualties reached a peacetime peak of 7,343 in 1934, before Hore-Belisha's Road Traffic Act checked the rise. There were 6,648 fatal accidents on British roads in 1938. But after the street lights were switched off in September 1939, the toll rose dramatically. The total for the year was 8,272. Newspapers complained during the 'phoney war' that the blackout was killing more civilians than the enemy.
The Birmingham Post blamed drivers' exasperation at the absence of road direction signs, which had been painted over or taken down to confuse invaders. The Manchester Guardian's explanation for so many accidents was, 'the psychological effect of living dangerously,' in war-time. The Home Office took this to mean, 'War-dangers have caused road-dangers to be taken lightly.' Among other explanations was the inexperience of service drivers. Yet military vehicles did not show up as the culprits.
Pedestrians suffered worst in the early months of the black-out, but by 1941 they were keeping well out of the way.
The slaughter prompted a conference at the Home Office in 1941. The Home Office took the view that the biggest single cause was diminished police supervision, a conviction shared by chief constables. Young policemen had been called up, and those left were busy enforcing black-out regulations and taking part in civil defence.
'The Police War Reserve has not the same interest as the regular police,' according to the chief constable of Manchester. There was a failure to prepare the reservists for traffic policing, and road safety publicity campaigns, developed in the 1930s were run down.
The chief constable of Lancashire complained that, 'The instructions to school children which had largely fallen off during the war were worth continuing'.
Following the conference, policing was stricter, and road safety publicity was revived. The result was a reduction in the number of deaths in 1942 to 6,926, and in 1943 to 5,796. The figure continued downwards to its peace-time low point of 4,513 in 1948.
The toll increased again in the 1960s, but the trend is now downwards. Despite huge increases in traffic, speed, and annual mileage, road deaths last year were once again at the 1948 level, at 4,520.

That was 1992. By last year road deaths in the UK were less than half that, at 2,222 following road improvements, better cars with better handling, roadholding, steering, brakes, seatbelts, airbags, better visibility and better driving. More motorways have reduced casualties, drink-driving has diminished. It is not because of what we are paying to speed cameras. We are driving every bit as fast as we were in 1992.

Speed Limits: Other drivers should stick to them

Either there was little support for any change in the 70mph speed limit, or the 1,519drivers in the MORI sample for the 1995 Lex Report on Motoring were a self-righteous lot. My Sunday Times motoring column of 22 January 16 years ago noted about a third enjoyed driving fast, two-thirds did not, yet scarcely any wanted the limit raised to 80mph, as the 2011 Minister of Transport is broadly hinting. The 1995 survey showed strong opposition, among the surveyed, to lowering the limit, yet two months earlier anonymous magazine readers voted nine to one in favour of raising it to 80mph with stricter policing. It looks as though there is a dichotomy about speed limits; Everybody Else should slow down.

A strong majority (nearly two drivers out of three according to the Lex survey) believed driving too fast the second most frequent cause of accidents after drink-driving. There was support for speed cameras although respondents declared these made no difference to their own driving - presumably beyond reproach - but were useful for slowing others.

Drunks, speeders, the over-tired, and ,'driving too close to the vehicle in front' were blamed for accidents, disregarding bad weather, congestion, faulty road design, vehicle defects and practically everything else.

Surveys, however reliable and illuminating on facts, suffer from respondents telling interrogators not so much what they think, but what they feel they ought to think. Pollsters try to take this into account by 'weighting' results, yet blaming drinking and driving as the most frequent cause of road accidents shows how strong the social pressure on it has become. The real figure is less than one-fifth. The popular view that 'accidents happen to other people' now reads, 'accidents happen to other people who have been drinking too much and driving too fast.'

Speed has always been a target for safety propagandists. The 70mph limit was imposed in 1965 by a Labour Minister of Transport, Tom Fraser, in response to a spate of accidents on foggy motorways. It was scarcely a measured reaction, but gave the impression of determination to do something. Fraser called it an experiment and asked the Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL) to look into it.

The results were at best inconclusive, at worst deceitful. The TRRL knew on which side its bread was buttered and to accommodate the new incumbent, the non-driving Barbara Castle, reached a suitably equivocal conclusion. Mrs Castle made the limit permanent. It made no difference to the fog accidents, of course, and enforcement was patchy. Motorways remained the safest roads in the country accounting for just 3 per cent of the casualties, 11 injury accidents per hundred million kilometres compared with 108 in built-up areas and 33 in non-built-up areas.

Modern technology has made enforcement easier. Cameras, Vascar, unmarked cars, and radar guns make motorway speeders more likely to be caught. The AA supports the 70mph limit and says two-thirdsof its members agree. The RAC advocates a review. 'We have the worst of both worlds,' it says. 'We have a limit that is ignored by the majority, including the police. We ought to ask why we have a 70mph limit. If it is right then it should be enforced, if it isn't, what should it be?'