[S] Swedish Motorways • Motorvägar i Sverige

[Alle]

I agree with the above. Speed doesnt kill per se, bad driving does, tiresomeness, lack of care, drunk driving etc.

It needs to be reasonable though of course, i dont think most people would agree with too high limits either, too low limits would be equally unpopular, and unpractical.

As far as cameras go, i doubt it, let the police do their jobs and actually look for people who drive badly, cant hold their lane and such things. Thats what kills, not speed per se. It could become annoying.

Those who give up their freedom for safety deserve neither and will end up with neither as well, as they say .

I think the most effective way would be just that, check so that people drive adequately by having local law enforcement actually observe trafficants on their roads so that they dont pose any danger. Unfortunately that takes up resources both in time, money and manpower which could be used in other areas of law enforcement and citizen protection.

It would not be the end of accidents, but I think that is a good and practical way to deal with it. Then i also am for local empowerment and think the local communities should deal with their law enforcement so that people in Kiruna dont have complain about having to pay for keeping an eye on the roads of Scania, or vice versa .

[Euklidisk]

Originally Posted by Alle

I agree with the above. Speed doesnt kill per se, bad driving does, tiresomeness, lack of care, drunk driving etc.

"tiresomeness, lack of care, drunk driving" doesn't "kill per se" either, it's the crash But that doesn't mean it's not part of the course of events, or the outcome of the crash.

Originally Posted by Alle

It needs to be reasonable though of course, i dont think most people would agree with too high limits either, too low limits would be equally unpopular, and unpractical.

So speed limits is about what "people would agree with"? So why not just eliminate them?

Originally Posted by Alle

Those who give up their freedom for safety deserve neither and will end up with neither as well, as they say

Who do you mean doesn't deserve safety and freedom? Everybody in favour of some sort of speed limit?

[ChrisZwolle]

It can be pretty easy. A road has design standards, that have a design speed limit. Posting a significant lower speed limit only attracts speeding.

[Euklidisk]

Originally Posted by Chriszwolle

It can be pretty easy. A road has design standards, that have a design speed limit.

Agree

Originally Posted by Chriszwolle

Posting a significant lower speed limit only attracts speeding.

Why set a limit lower than what the road design allows, in the first place?

-----

In general terms, lower speed limit than what some people want to drive will always attract speeding.

[ChrisZwolle]

Originally Posted by Euklidisk

Why set a limit lower than what the road design allows, in the first place?

Political reasons. In the Netherlands, roads are undergoing a new classification system, and long wide, straight and quiet roads often have a 60-limit now, because they're not having a major traffic function. People continue to drive 90 there, but they made it look like 90 is much more dangerous now, while the road didn't change when being downgraded from 80 to 60.

Also, a lot of 100km/h roads (motorroads) are in the process of being degraded to normal 80-roads.

A problem is, that people do not know how to handle higher speeds, it's not uncommon to see an line of cars behind someone who drives only 70km/h, which is very frustrating, because 80 is already feeling like a low speed limit.

With all unnecessary (juridical meaning) signs, low speed limits, chicanes, speed bumps, speed traps etc, people do not develop an own responsibility-feeling anymore. Everything is guided here, quite different to other countries, where people are more relying on their own responsibility instead of that of the road authority/politics.

[Euklidisk]

Originally Posted by Chriszwolle

Political reasons. In the Netherlands, roads are undergoing a new classification system, and long wide, straight and quiet roads often have a 60-limit now, because they're not having a major traffic function. People continue to drive 90 there, but they made it look like 90 is much more dangerous now, while the road didn't change when being downgraded from 80 to 60.

Also, a lot of 100km/h roads (motorroads) are in the process of being degraded to normal 80-roads.

A problem is, that people do not know how to handle higher speeds, it's not uncommon to see an line of cars behind someone who drives only 70km/h, which is very frustrating, because 80 is already feeling like a low speed limit.

Yes, the speed limit must be justified. The road authority has to point out what constitutes it.

E.g, the road/section:
# is 9 m wide
# has no left turn lanes
# has many level crossings
# has an AADT of 5000
etc.

Therefore it get X km/h

Originally Posted by Chriszwolle

With all unnecessary (juridical meaning) signs, low speed limits, chicanes, speed bumps, speed traps etc, people do not develop an own responsibility-feeling anymore. Everything is guided here, quite different to other countries, where people are more relying on their own responsibility instead of that of the road authority/politics.

Yes, it's sad. Just as I can't leave my door unlocked or trust people money on the street either. We have burglar alarms and cameras in shops and private houses, just as we have speed bumps and speed limits. It's a fact in our modern society.

[Alle]

Originally Posted by Euklidisk

"tiresomeness, lack of care, drunk driving" doesn't "kill per se" either, it's the crash But that doesn't mean it's not part of the course of events, or the outcome of the crash.

Thanks for adding stringency. However that is the root of the accident


So speed limits is about what "people would agree with"? So why not just eliminate them?

Of course, its a democracy, or supposed to be, what do you prefer, dogmatic totalitarian decisions? People would not put up with any speed limit. Whether its too high or too low it risks to be met with opposition. That is what i meant.


Who do you mean doesn't deserve safety and freedom? Everybody in favour of some sort of speed limit?

I was referring to cameras. Its a loosely quoted historical statement.

...

[Dan]

The speed limit is there to be obeyed and is the law. Certainly, I break the speed limit all the time. The cameras are simply another way of enforcing this (very common) law. As much as I might hate them (because I sometimes have to lower my speed if I am speeding a bit), it is my conscious decision to break the law (both with or without the camera). If people want to keep driving at whatever speeds they want, they can still do that anyway even with the camera there, but then they have to face the consequences. You realize that you are breaking the law, even if there is no camera or cop.

[Euklidisk]

Originally Posted by Alle

Thanks for adding stringency. However that is the root of the accident

...no speed, no accident - More speed, more and worse accidents. Mabye the existence of humans and cars is the root of car accidents

Originally Posted by Alle

Of course, it's a democracy, or supposed to be, what do you prefer, dogmatic totalitarian decisions? People would not put up with any speed limit. Whether its too high or too low it risks to be met with opposition. That is what i meant.

Why should I prefer "dogmatic totalitarian decisions"?

[Ingenioren]

90km/h to 80km/h doesn't change much. We have done this in Norway a few years back on the best non-guard-rail-road-stretches with the most fatale accidents. Results: Only small reduction in accidents.
But on many not so good roads with high fatality numbers, they lowered the limit from 80km/h to 70km/h, and these roads had much less fatale accidents, in face to face collisions.
Showing there's a big difference between 90km/h and 80km/h face to face collisions (In Norway most people drive 10 km/h over the speed limit.)

The weirdest thing i see in sweden is the E6 past tanumshede wich is really wide... So wide that cars can pass trucks with facing trafic. Definatly room for a guard-rail, but no guard-rail. Someone please enlighten me of why they would construct such a road?

[Alle]

Originally Posted by Euklidisk

...no speed, no accident - More speed, more and worse accidents. Mabye the existence of humans and cars is the root of car accidents



Why should I prefer "dogmatic totalitarian decisions"?

Haha, yes sure, by the same token we could abolish speed. Lets all stand still . The point is that there are many advantages to travelling and doing so at a reasonable speed, accidents are tragic, without doubt. But lowering speed limits is not always the best compromise...

...I didnt imply you preferred that, i just wanted to drive my point home, since it seemed that you did not fully understand what i meant in the original post.

Nor did i intend to imply that we should remove speed limits or let the average person on the street arbitrarily set it. But there needs to be a balance, and I dont think lowering it too much would be a solution as much as it would be a subject of annoyance.

But i guess i sort of struck a nerve bringing up the "popularity" of speed limits as a deciding factor. I hope i clarified that now . If a local community wants relatively low speed limits in their locality, its up to them, of course.

[Euklidisk]

Originally Posted by Alle

But i guess i sort of struck a nerve bringing up the "popularity" of speed limits as a deciding factor. I hope i clarified that now . If a local community wants relatively low speed limits in their locality, its up to them, of course.

This discussion originated from the presentation of the new Swedish speed limits, thus discussing speed. I have not claimed speed limits as a deciding factor. My feeling is that many drivers excuse their speeding behavior with others "bad driving", "tiresomeness", "lack of care" and "drunk driving". It's here we have the "nerve".

If you want to discuss traffic safety in general please do.

[Alle]

Ok, i may have missunderstood the starting point of the discussion. Those reasons are hardly any excuses for speeding, but I do think that they are one major factor behind accidents, if not the largest one. And thus accidents could be prevented by surveying traffic for technically bad driving. People not driving properly and not using expedient vigilance and signals are the worst factor i believe, along with attitude. But this it should be noted, is based on my intuititon and judgement and not actual statistics.

Certain accidents will happen no matter speed limit (within reasonable speed ranges of course), if you dont survey for bad driving. Whereas other accidents of more sporadic and incidential nature i dare guess do increase with higher speed limits, because the time for reaction is lower and the severity of accidents most often increased.

In the long term we should sort out the odd speed limits and only have 30, 40, 60, 80, 100 and 120 km/h. This is what I think:

120 km/h, Motorways
100 km/h, Guardrail roads
80 km/h, Non-divided roads
60 km/h, Small country roads and suburban roads
40 km/h, City roads and housing areas
30 km/h, Outside schools or mixed with bicycles and pedestrians

It looks good, but i dont know if its practically possible or very advantageous to reach such consistency, technology and roads change all the time, and the roads do so in a fragmented nature throughout the nation. But i guess its good to have goals to aim at as a general standard.

[Euklidisk]

Originally Posted by Alle

Ok, i may have missunderstood the starting point of the discussion. Those reasons are hardly any excuses for speeding, but I do think that they are one major factor behind accidents, if not the largest one. And thus accidents could be prevented by surveying traffic for technically bad driving. People not driving properly and not using expedient vigilance and signals are the worst factor i believe, along with attitude. But this it should be noted, is based on my intuititon and judgement and not actual statistics.

Certain accidents will happen no matter speed limit (within reasonable speed ranges of course), if you dont survey for bad driving. Whereas other accidents of more sporadic and incidential nature i dare guess do increase with higher speed limits, because the time for reaction is lower and the severity of accidents most often increased.

Yes, I agree with you!
People (not everybody) has to know more about how their car and own mind work, knowledge about how the car behave during an emergency situation and train their own reactions - with alcohol in the blood it's difficult to use it Driving should also be something engageing, as it makes one reflect over the potential situations, and learn. Driving as a routine is dangerous. In city driving it's important to remember that unprotected humans is very fragile!

Originally Posted by Alle

It looks good, but i dont know if its practically possible or very advantageous to reach such consistency, technology and roads change all the time, and the roads do so in a fragmented nature throughout the nation. But i guess its good to have goals to aim at as a general standard.

All the speed steps annoy me a little bit, but with the fragmentated situation - as you point out - then it probably is the best way to go.

[denvise]

This thread has been dead for a while, soo I'll just post some pix from my trip Linköping-Stockholm(mostly E4) and bring it back. This first are from the city of Linköping leding out to E4 .. So now it's all E4 to STHLM. (close up) Norrköping

[denvise]

Notice the red asfalt.. Kinda wide now Resturant on top of the road. Close to Södertälje(worse city in Sweden) Södertälje Tomorrow I'll post some pix of urban-freeways .Here is a sneak peak..

[Mateusz]

I think Stockholm needs motorway bypass, however terrain seems to be difficult Many lakes.

[Schweden]

I'll try to get some UC pics from the new motorway being built between Örebro and Lekhyttan (half the way between Örebro-Karlskoga). I guess I will take the bus to Örebro sometime in the near future.

[Alle]

Im interested in how the new motorway will look. What speed limit will it have?

[Dan]

Originally Posted by MateoW

I think Stockholm needs motorway bypass, however terrain seems to be difficult Many lakes.

They will start building a motorway bypass by 2010. It's a bit over 20km long, and over 15km of it will be in tunnels.