Talk:Speed limit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Traffic calming / design speed section?[edit]

Is traffic calming within scope? As noted above traffic calming seems to be pretty much essential to enforce speed limits on low/moderate speed roads. Should there be a section on 'traffic calming' alongside 'maximum speed limits'/'minimum speed limit',/'variable speed limit'? I am asking this here because it is a extension of scope beyond the strict legal definition, however there is already discussion about the relationship between design speed, 85% speed and legal speed limit and traffic calming is all part of that. Possibly we should have a section on 'design speed' which covers both designing for high speed roads and low speed roads. This could be a stub with a link into a more full description in the road article. Any thoughts? PeterEastern (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, traffic calming is not in scope, it has its own article. Traffic calming is just one of the ways of actually achieving what speed limits fail to achieve - lower traffic speeds. This article should be restricted to the objectives, successes (if there are any) and failings of speed limits. The 'see also' section is the place for articles about other measures attemping to deliver speed reduction. If anything, this article covers too much already - it reads like a speed limit sales brochure. -- de Facto (talk). 14:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See comment in the section above. Article seems to be a fine length to me, sorry about the sales brochure impression - feel free to add appropriate 'anti-sales brochure' material if appropriate but lets not confuse the 'Safety' section in the process. PeterEastern (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impressive documents - thanks. There isn't a Speed management article as such, possibly we should create a 'Other speed management techniques' section for this article for starters. Personally I am wondering if the title of this article could become 'Speed management' given the importance of physical measures as well as legislation to control speed. Great examples from around the world. PeterEastern (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better, possibly, would be a new article with that title summarising this, those and other measures, with each summary linking to the appropriate 'main article'. The addition of that content under this title would certainly take it further out of scope and leave an opening for a new, tighter, article concentrating just on speed limits. -- de Facto (talk). 20:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New 'Speed limit enforcement' article[edit]

Over the past week I have been working on rationalising the Traffic enforcement camera article and noted on its talk page that the speed camera section was about half the length of the whole article (there is a lot of content - all good interesting stuff in the main). It was agreed that the 'speed camera' content should be spun out into a new speed limit enforcement article which is now done. I have now merged the relevant content from the 'Enforcement' section of this article into it and started to try to make sense of the combined content (but have not touched the Enforcement section of this article yet). I suggest that we adjust the 'see also' link from the 'Enforcement' section to point to this new article and also slim down the Enforcement section somewhat. Any thoughts? PeterEastern (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Good idea Peter. We can then fix this article to concentrate on just speed limits, and remove all the extraneous content which is either already is, or certainly should be, elsewhere. -- de Facto (talk). 16:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good. I have already cloned the Enforcement content from this article into the new one, so unless there are dissenting voices we can trim the section in this article in a few days. I will adjust the 'see also' link to be a 'main' link and direct there now.PeterEastern (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto's new sentence in lead - speed limits ineffective[edit]

DeFacto is determined to tell the world that speed limits are ineffective. On their own, they would never work. They need enforcement. That is unarguable. But good enforcement can change a culture, as I believe it has where I live, in Victoria, Australia. To make blanket statements to the effect that speed limits are ineffective is very POV. I'm not happy with DeFacto's recent changes saying this. Nor am I happy about his aggressive posting of this material. I know it's his POV. Mine is different. Neither should be in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48, it is not POV, it is fact. What's more, it is a fundamental fact supported by reliable sources and 100% within the scope of this article. Why would anyone wish to exclude it? -- de Facto (talk). 07:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To start with, speed limits DO work for many drivers without enforcement, traffic calming, or other strategies. I, and I know many others, tend to follow the advice of speed limit signs, all as part of being a responsible driver and good citizen. Any statement about their ineffectiveness cannot appear to be a global one as if it represents all drivers. DeFacto's recent additions to this and the Enforcement article are absolute, and therefore wrong.
Furthermore, a driving culture can be changed with effective enforcement. It has happened as I mentioned above, so enforcement is required much less. There are references. Enforcement is part of speed limits. The style and degree can be argued about, but there are situations where they work. HiLo48 (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48, yes some drivers may be more influenced by unenforced speed limits than others, and concentrated and robust enforcement may result in permanent compliance, in some places after the enforcement has ceased. Then why not add a reliably referenced piece about that, the lead could then be re-jigged to reflect that balance. However, at the macro level, and based on the content we see in the article today (and what else should the lead be based on?) and based on the massive amount of effort and resource devoted to the enforcement (we even have a whole article devoted to that very subject), the only sensible conclusion we can currently draw is indeed that, in general, speed limits alone are ineffectual. -- de Facto (talk). 08:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The US study finding that changes in low and moderate speed limits have no effect appears to be US-specific. Evidence from other jurisdictions shows substantial benefits. I've edited to reflect the mixed state of evidence and deleted tendentious summaries. I endorse the observations of HiLo48 and other editors (here and at other articles) regarding DeFacto's approach. JQ (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JQ - I'm pleased to see you adding some material from Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. The Accident Research Centre there is a body I have a had some dealings with. Independent of government, and hence politics. And it happens to be in the state in Australia which has used probably the harshest approach to speeding issues over the past 15 years. The results have been outstanding in that new speed limits are accepted quickly (albeit sometimes grudgingly) by a large percentage of drivers these days.  — [Unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 08:39:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC).][reply]
So HiLo48, are you saying that historically at least, speed limits were ineffective there too. It has taken a concerted effort to force acceptance and compliance? Can you provide sources so that we can add that? -- de Facto (talk). 09:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never ineffective. That would imply that all drivers ignored them. As I have emphasised elsewhere, that is never the case. The road authority sought to improve compliance, and has done so. Independent university tests prove it. (Sorry, I thought of that sentence, thought "No", sounds too derivative, then thought "Why not?. It's true.) HiLo48 (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JQ, the UK (TRL) study draws the same conclusion about specifically 20 mph limits - they don't work either. The Wiki policy is to balance all reliably sourced facts and opinions and not to apply undue weight to any of them. We need to be careful not to give undue weight to the studies which give our personal pre-conceived favourite conclusions. Currently the article leans away from the findings of the majority of the cited sources. My "approach" may be the "bold" one, but I think it's worth pursuing for the sake of balance. -- de Facto (talk). 08:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find DeFacto's whole approach to Speed Limits (and also parking issues and vehicle emissions) unhelpful. For sure he has added useful references and nuggets of information, but overall I find his approach unhelpful to creating balanced articles and he seems to be alone in pushing such an extreme view. I will from now on be pretty quick to revert edits he makes to articles unless they are clearly helpful rather than continually giving him the benefit of the doubt. I notice from his edit history that his entire contribution for April has been to a small number of articles critical to cars onto which he has been pushing 'pro-motorist' views. He has made over 300 edits to about five articles in this period which is more than 50% of his total Wikipedia contribution since July 2009. He was politely requested to stop by JQ on the 24th but has not - possibly a ban is required. PeterEastern (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, I believe that your stance is unreasonable. I do not have an extreme POV. You have a POV, I have a POV - they may be different on some, or on many, issues but neither are wrong, and neither should be suppressed by "banning"! Recently, after some time away from editing, I have observed articles being pulled in certain directions, and, in my opinion, away from the NPOV ideal that Wiki aspires too, so I have attempted to pull them back to some extent. What I have added has been in good faith and reliably sourced. Please read my points on the talk pages and don't try to construct a case against me by misrepresenting the motives behind the small proportion of my total contribution that your POV and your prejuduces do not allow you to agree with. If I believe that important aspects of a topic are being overlookd, misrepresented or suppressed I will attempt to recify that - as I guess you would too. Please don't resort to, threaten or incite, edit warring, we can trash out a consensus on the talk pages. What we can't do though is suppress valid, appropriate, validatable and reliably sourced content. -- de Facto (talk). 10:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The best thing would be for DeFacto to take a voluntary break from motoring-related topics for a while, and concentrate on contributions on topics where s/he has less of a POV commitment and that are less likely to be reverted. The alternative is indeed the well trodden path through RfC, temporary blocks and, in the end, topic bans or permanent exclusion. 11:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) (unsigned comment by JQ)
JQ, please concentrate on your own POV-pushing agenda before deciding who you think should and should not edit this article. Be careful too not to deploy Wiki bullying tactics, and particularly not to issue "no-edit" orders. -- de Facto (talk). 15:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Been thinking about the view that speed limits don't work without (at least the threat of) enforcement. I suspect the same applies to most others laws that govern society. People aren't supposed to steal. If there was no enforcement, I suspect there would be a lot more than we see now. Same applies to public drunkenness, disturbing the peace, sex crimes, etc. To single out road laws for special mention, simply because they are accompanied by enforcement, does seem out of place. In Wikipedia terms, it's not notable. HiLo48 (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good thought. Pushing the analogy further people are encouraged to use locks on their houses to reduce the likelihood of theft and therefore the requirement for intervention by the authorities - equally traffic calming is used to make non-compliance less tempting and therefore reduce the requirement for enforcement. Indeed someone who leaves valuables lying around can expect criticism from authorities and others for making theft to tempting. The logic is that just because there a physical measures to encourage compliance with speed limits and that enforcement is not always effective doesn't make them 'useless'. PeterEastern (talk) 09:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peter, not quite. A better analogy is that speed limits are like relying on a "no stealing" notice nailed to a post in your front garden, whilst leaving your valuables on show and all the doors and windows open. Traffic-calming would then be analogous to locking and barring all the doors and windows and hiding all your stuff out of view. -- de Facto (talk). 10:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. And 20 mph zones are analogous to locking everything and hiding everything away AND putting up a "no stealing" sign outside, and then giving all the credit for the well-being of your valuables to the little sign in the garden. -- de Facto (talk). 10:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • HiLo48, there's a subtle difference between the two categories though. Most what you might call 'common law' laws are, by and large, complied with by most reasonable people without the need for heavy-handed enforcement. It isn't the law or threat of being caught that deters most people from committing murder, or from robbing folk in the street, it is their conscience (due to their upbringing or whatever) recognising that it is inherently wrong. On the other hand, a driver, who is, possibly subconsciously, continuously adjusting his speed, making split-second decisions based on his perceptions of risk from what he sees around him and what he knows about his vehicle and the environment in which he finds himself and his desired comfort/thrill factor levels doesn't necessarily register an unenforced and arbitrarily set speed limit as a significant factor to go into his computation. That is why enforcement is a notable element with regard to speed limits and probably with regard to other laws which have arbitrary and non-intuitive boundaries applied - it raises the significance (risk) of not compying above the threshold for inclusion into the calculation. That is also why speed limits are not an efficient or sustainable way of controlling traffic speeds - there are notable alternatives which do deliver appropriate speeds, and which don't rely on continuous enforcement. -- de Facto (talk). 10:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Nothing there except opinion. Too subjective and personal to be encyclopaedic. Comparing one law and its enforcement with another law and its enforcement is straightforward. To present a case that there's a difference will take a lot of referencing on your part. HiLo48 (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Effectiveness of speed limits[edit]

We seem to have lost sight of what should be the objectives of the discussion here. It shouldn't be to devise ways of suppressing uncomfortable facts (including editor intimidation and ban treats) which contradict one's own pre-conceptions.

The main current issue is what is a reasonable adjective to use when summarising the proven effectiveness of unenforced speed limits. We need to be sure that reports or evidence suggesting something different are actually based on the results at un-calmed and unenforced locations, and that the weight given to them is proportional to their overall contribution to the total verifiable evidence base. My current assessment is "ineffective", but I would settle for "virtually ineffective" pending a review of the recently added Australian data. Any opinions? -- de Facto (talk). 12:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Australian situation: Like in the USA, every state in Australia has the authority to make road laws. In one state, Victoria, mobile speed cameras are not signposted. It's controversial, but definitely creates a greater long term awareness among drivers that they could be caught at any time, anywhere, for speeding. My own view is that eventually this translates into a behaviour of just obeying speed limits because they are there, rather than an immediate fear of getting caught. OK, that's all POV, but there is evidence to support it. Yes, it's a combination of speed limits and policing, but it has caused a long term change in driving culture, which now doesn't need as much policing. HiLo48 (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there verifiable evidence from Victoria that compliance would be high if random enforcement ceased? -- de Facto (talk). 13:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reverted out the changes to the road safety section because I believe it breaks the flow of the section to introduce a sub-heading. I have removed the 'however' as per your suggestion. I also think that an 'effectiveness' should be a separate section. If you are confident that you can write one that works then do try, but please leave the road safety section alone. I do however note that it was recommended that you take a break from editing motoring related articles. PeterEastern (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peter, you also "reverted out" the new data that I added. Are you going to restore that too? If not please explain why not. We are going around in circles here. We had a top-level 'Effectiveness' section before, but you reverted that too - here. Will you create it where you think it belongs and move the 'effectiveness' content out from the current inappropriate 'Road traffic safety' section into it please. As for taking a break - would you take a break if someone recommended you to so that they could push their POV unhindered? -- de Facto (talk). 13:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that you have again made substantial changes to the article including splitting out part of the traffic safety section into a new 'effectiveness' section - I specifically requested that you 'leave the road safety section alone' - and that meant that I didn't want you to remove content from the safety section into any sub-section or any new section. Your comment on one of the changes of "split-off new 'Effectiveness' section as per suggestion by PeterEastern on the talk page (no content change, just moved the appropriate sub-content))" is therefore not what I said. As I have indicated elsewhere I have lost patience with your focus on these articles when you have such a different perspective on the subject from the rest of the editors. I propose to not touch the article for 24 hours this time and allow others to respond as they see appropriate. PeterEastern (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You wrote above "I also think that an 'effectiveness' should be a separate section. If you are confident that you can write one that works then do try, but please leave the road safety section alone." I created the new section and moved only the 'effectiveness' content to it, leaving the 'road traffic safety' content intact. What were you expecting - that I copied & pasted a second copy of it there? That would be ridiculous! -- de Facto (talk). 19:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I wonder what the discussion here is. It may be a bit over the point considering the topic, but I remember something Tertullian once said. At his time, the Emperors had given a law that Christians were to be fed to the lions; they had also given what we would now call an executive order that Christians were (at that time) nevertheless not to be hunted out by active measures. Tertullian, now, attacked this for lack of internal logic: Si damnas, cur non et inquiris; si non inquiris, cur non et absolvis? "If you condemn, why don't you prosecute; if you don't prosecute, why don't you just go the whole hog and acquit?" - Frankly, whatever to be said about speed limits, a speed limit without hidden and randomly posted speed cameras means to defraud the decent driver, because he (who will follow the law) and he only is then the stupid one while all the others just go as they please unless warned. I can't see what the controversial thing about these cameras would be (under the hypothesis that the speed limit is there in any case). If there is a speed limit, random and unseen control may perhaps be necessary for effectiveness, but certainly is necessary for justice, which is a much more important thing.--2001:A61:20F8:5001:95C:95E9:FB46:606 (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto's "So-called 20 mph zones"[edit]

DeFacto writes "however with the creation of so-called '20 mph zones' which employ traffic calming measures, an average speed reduction of around 10 mph, with a corresponding reduction in road casualties was achieved" and explains in the edit comment that "'20 mph zones' are traffic-calmed zones - and nothing to do with speed limits as such)"

However... I note from the official department website that: The use of 20 mph speed limit zones was intended to address the serious problem of child pedestrian accidents occurring in and around residential areas, and so was initially limited to these areas. Subsequent research has shown that the risk of a child being involved in an accident has reduced by about two-thirds where 20 mph zones have been installed ... 20 mph speed limits by signs alone would be most appropriate where 85th percentile speeds are already low and further traffic calming measures are not needed. 20 mph zones should be used where excessive speeds occur, and where traffic calming measures would be needed to ensure speeds are at or below 20 mph. 20 mph zones would be particularly appropriate where there is an existing record of accidents to children occurring over an area, or where concentrations of pedestrians and/or cyclists exist or are anticipated. They can help to protect children walking and cycling to and from school, and may encourage other children to walk or cycle.[1].

Again DeFacto has messed with the facts by saying 'corresponding reductions' when the savings are 2 out of 3 accidents, he has also introduced innuendo with with phrase 'so-called'. I am also not clear in what way they are not speed limits. Finally .... he has not responded to my earlier question on this talk page (in the 'Road traffic safety' section) about the The 2003 British Columbia report and how its results can be ignored. I suggest we revert again without further discussion. PeterEastern (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, are you trouble-making again? I used the "so-called" qualifier because the official name is a misnomer; the name doesn't reflect the true nature of the zones. They are actually traffic-calmed zones. The reason I clipped the minutia about casualty numbers was becasue they are attributable to traffic-calming, not to speed limits, which, if you look at the title, is the scope of this article. The deletion, or even the inciting of deletion, of reliably sourced on-topic content is not advisable - it is considered to be a serious disruption, or even vandalism. Throw away you prejudices and read what I wrote again, and read the cited references, then come back with a considered and rational opinion. -- de Facto (talk). 20:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the Highway code they are speed limits. See the document titled 'signs giving orders'.[2]
They are traffic-calmed zones, with a superfluous speed limit thrown in. Here is a simple eleven-plus type logic question for you to try
If:
  1. Traffic calming + 20 mph limit = 20 mph traffic
  2. Traffic calming alone = 20 mph traffic
  3. Speed limit alone = 30 mph traffic
What role does the 20 mph speed limit have in delivering the 20 mph traffic speed when it is combined with traffic-calming? -- de Facto (talk). 22:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To provide a clear justification for the prosecution of those who flout common sense rather than having the police have to rely on gaining a conviction for 'driving too fast for the conditions'. This is the normal reason for speed limits. PeterEastern (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I'll look at the "earlier question " that you refer to now, I missed it in the flurry ;-) -- de Facto (talk). 20:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. Will you be answering the important questions that I left in reply to your comment on my talk page? -- de Facto (talk). 20:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the answers are pretty obvious I agree, and they do rather expose your accusations for what they are, so yes, there's no real point I suppose. -- de Facto (talk). 22:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto's assessments are clearly a combination of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If the authorities say they are speed limits, and no WP:RS contradicts them, then that's what Wikipedia says too.JQ (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who sets speed limits?[edit]

The lead paragraph has "Speed limits are commonly set and enforced by the legislative bodies of nations or provincial governments."

Not sure how true that is.

My experience has been that speed limit policies are recommended to govt by road authorities. This would include maximum speeds, but also guidelines on where lower limits would be applied. Once agreed to, detailed application of speed limits is handed back to the road authority. The "legislative body" technically leaves the setting of the limits to the road authority.

HiLo48 (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting out the UK speed limit detail[edit]

I am proposing to split out of the detail about UK speed limits from the history section into a new Road traffic safety in the United Kingdom article. Some key facts will be relevant to this article and should remain in it, but I feel there is far to much detail about one jurisdiction. I suggest we have a history section of this article should consist of a chronological list of key dates and events with aim to build a broader global perspective. Any thoughts? PeterEastern (talk) 06:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split it out - but to a new Road speed limits in the United Kingdom (to disambiguate it from train and other UK speed limits) article, similar to Road speed limits in the Republic of Ireland or Speed limits in Australia. Then the article you suggest could be an umbrella article, referring to the new UK speed limit article, and to other articles relevant to the topic. I'd help you to create those. -- de Facto (talk). 08:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's what I suggested, 2 articles; a UK speed limit one a UK road safety umbrella one. -- de Facto (talk). 13:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHO para in lead (again!)[edit]

A chunk of WHO detail was removed from the lead again by DeFacto which I have reinstated. The comment with the edit said '(Attempt to better summarise the WHO stance - and removed the detailed figures breadown which better belongs in the appropriate sub-section'. I disagree about that but might have accepted it if s/he had actually added into the main article - preferably in the same edit but certainly prior to going on to edit a different article (which is what happened). I think it is 100% notable for the lead which is where it is again. PeterEastern (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did it- 22 minutes before you wrote this complaint! The numbers breakdown doesn't really belong in the lead, especially as they are not directly related to speed limits per se. -- de Facto (talk). 13:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, missing it - apologies. However I would request that in future you move the content to the main article in one go and not head off to other article in the middle of the edit - you have completely removed the WHO content from the lead a number of times before hence my irritation. Personally I think the fact that roads are the 'leading cause of death of children 12-29' belongs in the lead. Personally I think this is yet another example of your pro-motorist 'POV pushing' and I will resist any change to the para with out messages of support for you view from others. PeterEastern (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I prefer not to edit a section in the same session as the lead (although lazily I sometimes do) because the edit summary doesn't then automatically include which section was edited - and that annoys some other editors. The content might be more appropriate in the lead if this was the main road safety article, but not in this article about one of many 'road safety' measures. Where would you draw the line? We would then have to add balance to the lead by devoting space to the detailed figures from some other organisation who assert that speed limits can actually cause more crashes. The main purpose of the lead, especially in a substantially sized article like this, is to summarise the essential essence of the article - not to add otherwise absent content. -- de Facto (talk). 15:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basic rule, Reasonable man, etc[edit]

We now have comment that the Basic rule applies in the US, and the Reasonable man in Britain and elsewhere. I'm in Australia, have been close to speeding discussions for many years, and have not seen either term in use. That's interesting given that our law is very derivative of British law. Is there really evidence that the latter term is used outside the UK? HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used a google search to find, among others, the following references [3], [4]. Would you concur that the "reasonable person" concept is at least in Australian common law? (I haven't looked in the statutes yet.)

Duke Ganote (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like HiLo48 I'm a little mystified. The "reasonable person" is a concept in Australian common law, but it does not arise in relation to speed limits,as far as I'm aware. The general concept of driving appropriately for conditions is covered under dangerous driving, I think. JQ (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, dangerous driving is the basic offence which depends on the judgement of others, usually the police officer doing the charging. HiLo48 (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exceeding the speed limit is a strict offence in Australia. There is no need to involve a "reasonable person". Once the fact the speed limit has been exceeded is established nothing further needs to be proved for a successful prosecution. The articles Regulatory offences and Automatism (law) might help you understand this concept more. Alex Sims (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC). Chapter 10 of the Legal Services Commission of SA's Law Handbook is also worth a look. Alex Sims (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Reasonable man" applies to speeds less than the posted speed limit (if one is applicable), but "travelling at a dangerous speed" [5]. Like 10 km/h in a 110 km/h zone, but on black ice in the fog. Duke Ganote (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1.2 kills[edit]

Doesn't the lead suggest that WHO thinks that there would not be 1.2 million people getting killed on roads if there were stricter speed limits? That's not what they think. Joepnl (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Theres a few too many negatives in that sentence for me to be sure about the meaning. Want to try again? HiLo48 (talk) 09:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I mean that the lead suggests that WHO thinks that there are 1.2 million deaths that could be avoided with lower speedlimits. Joepnl (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Montana[edit]

Over the past hew days there's been a bit of an edit skirmish regarding the inclusion of some data from Montana which somewhat contradicts most other data. The content is now in the first table here. I first challenged the editor adding it to provide a souce, which he did, with this.

User:Alex Sims reverted, suggesting that wasn't a reliable source, and that the content would be better in the text, rather than in the table with no explanation. It is a blatantly POV source, from the National Motorists Association (by National they mean USA), which seems to exist to argue against the existence of speed limits, speed cameras, red light cameras, police, etc.

The original editor has now restored the content, saying "Numerous websites also point that out." If that's true, I think I would prefer a less POV source, but I don't want to raise this from a skirmish to an edit war.

HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues with the edits which I'll address at least partially.
  • The text keeps being inserted as if it was part of the British Columbia Study. It isn't, read the context of the table. To fix this I'll move it to some text further down
  • It's not a reliable source. I'll make the text point that out, that it comes from an advocacy group and is not peer reviewed etc.
Alex Sims (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neat fix. Thanks HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source looks somewhat unreliable and biased. I looked up FARS data for 1998,1999,2000 for number of fatal-crashes in Montana (state), for (nhtsa)Roadway Functional Classification=Principal Arterial - Interstate and get the following figures for crashes by month:
1998-4,0,2,4,5,1,5,4,0,0,3,2,30
1999-2,2,4,2,1,0,2,9,4,2,1,5,34
2000-2,1,4,5,1,5,3,3,3,1,4,4,36
However the "study" has
1998-4,0,2,4,5,1,5,4,0,1,3,2,31
1999-2,2,4,2,1,0,2,7,4,1,1,4,30
2000-4,2,8,5,2,7,7,3,4,1,6,7,56
I've removed the section, it's obviously made up numbers for 2000 for interstates to suit an argument, nowhere near fact. There is a reason for the use of reliable sources in Wikipedia and this is a case in point. Alex Sims (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's some more great work. This Montana stuff gets added to these article quite regularly, obviously because it supports the POV of some editors. But it always looked odd, being such a statistical outlier. Now that you have shown it to be false, is there a way we can somehow make that very blatantly obvious to all future editors, for all eternity? Can we permanently blacklist a source so it never appears here again? HiLo48 (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regulations section - Units[edit]

User:Zeimusu has just placed a citation needed tag on the claim that "All countries use metric units (kilometres per hour), except for the United States and the United Kingdom, where speed limits are given in miles per hour."

It's an interesting one. It's probably not quite true, and going to be hard to find a simple source for. Metrication in the United States tells us that "The United States of America does not officially use or mandate a metric system of units, making it one of only three countries, along with Burma (Myanmar) and Liberia, that still use customary units." This means that those three countries will logically not use metric units on the roads. The UK is the odd one out, having officially metricated, but having done it in a half-arsed kind of way. Yes, it still uses mph for speed limits.

So, I'm highly confident that there are four countries which don't use metric measures on the road, but to get there I did a fair bit of original research and synthesis. Where to from here? HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is biased[edit]

This article is severely biased in favor of reduced limits. The sections that discuss most the research conveniently omit significant research or observational data that would favor higher or eliminated limits, leaving it for the "Opposition" section below, as if higher limits are just some kind of obviously kooky thing. Yikes!

Further, it basically assumes that because a preponderance of research says X, then X must be true. (Sorry, forgot the technical name of this logical fallacy.) In fact, the preponderance of research could be a self-fulfilling prophesy. For example, a lot of the before/after studies of speed limit changes are taken in a short time after the speed limit change and fail to account for long-term effects of speed policy. If you study the USA's 55 mph speed limit with a very narrow window, you'll see a huge drop in crashes. However, if you study the USA's 55 mph speed limit over several years, you'll see a clear reversion to mean effect--after a small number of years, after the initial drop, crashes rose to the point where they would have been had there been no change in the speed limit and the pre-55 mph trend in crash reduction continued to improve linearly--and also find that there are too many factors at play to really say whether the speed limit really did anything durable. E.g., prominent safety advocates--the ones who prefer strict regulatory regimes--are on the record saying automotive and roadway safety improvements should take most credit for safety improvements, not speed limits.

This article needs serious rewrite. It is implicitly invalidating arguments favoring high speed limits.

-- 129.119.62.61 (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm. With the exception of the 'Charles A. Lave et al' article (which I haven't read but does appear to be of a high academic standard and is peer reviewed) the rest of the reports mentioned in the 'Opposition' section are from organisations with a strong bias in favour of motoring. As such it seems appropriate to organise these 'pro' and 'anti' views into the current sections. PeterEastern (talk) 08:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Speed Derestriction[edit]

I've reverted this edit as it implies a road with no speed limit, which it is not, and which is doubly confusing in an article in a section with roads with no speed limits which truly are. Whether someone's definition states an open road has no speed limit is not really relevant as it must be verifiable and not supposition. Could another editor please have a look at this? Alex Sims (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An "open road" (which the NZTA refers it to) by definition has no speed limits. The website also says that 100 km/h is the maximum legal speed for motor vehicles in New Zealand. Because of that, the sign means no speed limits on an open road, but you still have to observe the maximum legal speed. You need to give a good reason why not to include that it means "open road", when that is exactly the wording the NZTA uses. I find it ironic that you're complaining this isn't verifiable, when I'm the one with all the sources and you have nothing. I'm the one with two Australian State sources for the derestriction sign in Australia while you removed it several times under your own supposition of "rubbish". You also kept removing the text about New Zealand's use of the sign when you had no source against it and I had the NZTA website. Fry1989 eh? 19:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, you've met my concern about roads with no speed limits. :-) I've expanded the quote to include the heading. Alex Sims (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is an advocacy group's political position notable in an article such as this one?[edit]

Is an advocacy group's political position notable for a related article? I am prompted to ask this because of the recent edit to this article which reduced: "According to a report published in 1986 by The Heritage Foundation, a Conservative advocacy group, the law was widely disregarded by motorists and hardly reduced consumption at all" to this: "According to a report published in 1986 by The Heritage Foundation, the law was widely disregarded by motorists and hardly reduced consumption at all." I think we need some Wikipedia guidance on this, given that a number of us are currently also in the middle of an as-yet fruitless discussion over on General Motors streetcar conspiracy as to whether is it relevant that the Cato institute is an 'American libertarian think tank', or if one should not mention the 'American libertarian think tank' bit, or indeed if one shouldn't mention that Cato published the report at all! See Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy#Cato again again for more details. Personally I think their political views are likely to be relevant. PeterEastern (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! I've just reverted the edit above and then read the changes to the talk page. And I think I added the think tank bit originally. If you don't have an inkling of what the Heritage Foundation is about you'll draw a different conclusion as a reader. I think it's reasonable to mark them as conservative and leave it to the reader to click on the Heritage Foundation to find out more. I think the real question is whether we mention the author or not. The only reason the source remains is lack of a better one and readers need something but maybe with a grain of salt as its not peer reviewed. Alex Sims (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your views, and thanks for reverting. I avoided doing it myself in case I became seen as a left-wing troll going round reinstating text clarifying the advocacy position of right wing groups! PeterEastern (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see what some of you seem to consider an obvious connection or correlation between political inclination and a desire to drive fast. Is such a thing documented anywhere? HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I was asking was if there were any guidelines on when it was appropriate to use these formats or if we have to argue each one on a case by case basis. The options appear to be:

  1. Blar is fact
  2. So-and-so says that blar is fact
  3. blogsandco says that blar is fact
  4. So-and-so of blogsandco says that blar is fact
  5. blogs and co, who are a left-wing/right-wing/republican/communist/Buddhist organisation claim that blar is fact

In this case I believe it is appropriate to use a appropriate version of #5 because the Heritage Foundation have a strong tendency to advocate for reduced regulation in transport and across the board and also seem pretty skeptical about climate change which forms a pattern.[6]

Germany[edit]

Germany always seems to be a popular country in all speed limit issues since it is famous for its roads that don't generally have one (Autobahnen). I have a few questions concerning this article:

  • The section Effectiveness states that due to lowering the speed limit from 60km/h to 50km/h in 1994, crashes declined by 20%. Unfortunately, I have no access to the source this is quoted from. I would really like to know where they got their information.
Which roads, in the first place, are they talking about? How many roads ever even had a speed limit of 60km/h? Within city limits, the speed limit is 50km/h (and has been for decades, way before 1994). So those must have been just a few roads outside of town, since most (major) roads outside of town have 70 or 100km/h.
How on earth is that small change supposed to result in a decline by 20%? Or does that mean: Well, there were hardly any roads with 60km/h to begin with. In 1994, we further reduced a few of these to 50km/h. And in 1995, instead of 10 casualties nationwide on these few roads that had the speed limit reduced from 60 to 50, we had only 8 casualties.
Is that what this means? In that case, we might have a nice case of cognitive bias here.
Don't get me wrong. I am all in favor of speed limits. But I am also all in favor of reliable numbers and sources.
  • The description of the "border crossing" sign seems a bit misleading. Germany does not have a general 100 km/h (62 mph) speed limit "in rural areas". It has a 100km/h speed limit on major roads between city or town limits. The term "Landstraße" might have been misleading here.

--93.212.249.237 (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The description of the border crossing sign is accurate and applies to Landstraße, Kreisstraße, and other rural roads. Straßenverkehrs-Ordnung section 3 says that the speed "außerhalb geschlossener Ortschaften...für Personenkraftwagen sowie für andere Kraftfahrzeuge mit einer zulässigen Gesamtmasse bis 3,5 [ist] 100 km/h."[1]. Duke Ganote (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake in one respect: The year does not refer to the date when the speed limit was reduced, but to the date of the publication (which I now found at least partly as an online document.
Still, the information from this source is pretty sparse. Basically, the whole table has simply been copied over here (btw, how about copyright?). The study quotes another study by an author named Scharping from 1994 which I cannot find, search as I might. Google has Rudolf all over the place. --93.212.249.237 (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first table from Effectiveness section is drawn Table 3 from Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Speed and Speed Management. There is an abstract for the Scharping reference at https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=415895 , in particular "In the spring of 1992, the Hamburg Police Traffic Department reduced the existing speed limit from 60 km/h to 50 km/h with a package of measures." (P.S. the Synthesis PDF has been truncated and you should refer to the archived copy for references). Alex Sims (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I read this piece of information and thought: What, we had a 60 km/h limit within cities up to 1994? That is strange, I think I should have remembered it! But then I was a small boy at the time, so I guessed it's true... that's how rumours are born I guess...--2001:A61:20F8:5001:95C:95E9:FB46:606 (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In France, it's up to 70 km/h, in 2018: http://www.courrierdesmaires.fr/10747/un-maire-peut-il-decider-librement-des-limitations-de-vitesse-dans-la-ville/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.51 (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvo_2013/__3.html

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Speed limit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Speed limit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing required[edit]

Apart from a lot of awkwardly worded passive sentences and phrases (eg "In Europe, speed limits are considered as part of the speed management policy."), there are some incomplete or ungrammatical sentences: "In the UK 20 mph speed was allowed in 1903." "One efficient scheme consist in penalty points and charges for speeding just a few over the speed limit." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.14.134.161 (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Urban speed limit does not make sense?[edit]

I have just seen one edit which stands that "Urban speed limit does not make sense". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speed_limit&diff=902420142&oldid=902417744

I was just wondering the reason why it was removed, because I assume there was a reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.2 (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You misquote my edit summary - it said "Undid revision 902417744 by 81.185.253.2 (talk) - doesn't make sense". I reverted your edit because I didn't think it made sense. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it's re-added, it should go in the maximum speed limit section just before the minimum speed limit section (down one section from where it was added before). Also, "many countries" and "more than 174" (so 175 then?) sound like incomplete research. I understand the overall point, though, that x number of countries have set a nationwide maximum speed limit for urban areas of 50 km/h, resulting in improved safety rates, according to the WHO. (then the citations) Orville1974 (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Many countries" is the wording of the WHO report.
For the exact count:
  • there are between 193 and 199 countries in the WHO: see https://en.wikipedia.org (List not including countries such as "West Bank and Gaza Strip") /wiki/Member_states_of_the_United_Nations
The published A4 table provide the list of countries: https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2018/Table_A4_Speed.xlsx?ua=1
  • 175 counties in the list
    • Do appear countries such as "West Bank and Gaza Strip" and "Cook Islands", The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
    • Do not appear countries such as Algeria, Andorra, Bahamas, Bahrain, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Haiti, Liechtenstein, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Nauru, Nicaragua, North Macedonia, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Tuval, Yeman and Zambia.
  • In those 175 countries,
    • 14 do not have a filled urban speed limit: Benin, Comoros, Dominica, Guinea, Honduras, Oman, Solomon Islands, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Gambia and Senegal
    • 14 have a maximum urban speed limit equal or less than 40 km/h: Albania, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Cambodia, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Maldives, Nepal, Philippines, Somalia, Suriname, Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, Saint Lucia
    • 76 have a maximum urban speed limit between 45 km/h, 48 km/h and 50 km/h included
    • 46 have a maximum urban speed limit between 56 km/h and 70 km/h included
    • 19 have a maximum urban speed limit between 80 km/h and 100 km/h included
    • Tho have higher urban maximum speed limit: Bangladesh (112 km/h) and the United States of America (128 km/h)
Another report https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/276462/9789241565684-eng.pdf?ua=1 where 175 countries are participating states things about best practice in managing speed, in page 28. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.2 (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Signs usually are placed on both sides of the road[edit]

"Signs usually are placed on both sides of the road", is this for the US?

I believe they are on the right side in Europe, on the left one in UK, and on both sides only on the motorways. But that kind of things is subject to differ from country to country...

Yes, it's obvious the practice will differ between countries. That paragraph is both unsourced and unhelpful. Time for it to go methinks. HiLo48 (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that it was probably vandalism. I've vacationed on six continents twice and I don't recall seeing that in any of the more than 20 countries I have visited so far. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speed limit signs are commonly placed on both sides of the road in the UK,[7] Ireland[8] and in other European countries,[9] Australia[10] and New Zealand,[11] at least. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These google maps images definitely don't show that it is common in that country. For example, in the Australian image another road not far down has the sign on one side of the street. It just shows that at least sometimes they are on both sides. [12]. Matz44 19:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American English or British English?[edit]

Currently, this article has a mix of American and British spellings (e.g. kilometer vs. kilometre). A decisions should be made, documented, and the article edited (except for source titles and direct quotes). The same should be done for date format. User-duck (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at MOS:ENGVAR for guidance it would appear that as the topic is not tied to any geographic area or English dialect, then there is no argument for a particular dialect. The MOS does argue for consistency within an article which you've highlighted. It also highlighted the need for wide understanding of meaning and choosing words that are globally consistent. So not sure what the answer is :) Alex Sims (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:ENGVAR tells us "When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety." I submit this probably occurred in the version from 04:04, 24 September 2002, where the word "kilometres" was used. So British English should be the standard here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)‎[reply]

Table in Maximum speed limits section[edit]

What actual use is this table? So far as I can see it just states upper and lower maximum speeds recommended for a few types of road. The information could be presented much more briefly.Ponsonby100 (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 1 irrelevant to material needing support[edit]

Unless there's a display issue on my machine, there is absolutely nothing in the source material that supports the definition of a speed limit as given in the article. Further, good citations supporting the material exist and are easily found. E.g., DOT page at https://highways.dot.gov/safety/speed-management/guidelines-use-variable-speed-limit-systems-wet-weather/chapter-1 is just one of many places the DOT talks about what a speed limit is. I might have just changed it, but there's too much "history" on this page for me to just change it. I encourage it but leave it to minds better than mine (perhaps, "more endeared of conflict than mine" would be more accurate) to make the final decision. MLHinCLE (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Speed_limit&oldid=1210485113"