Safe Speed Forums

Clearly there's never going to be the opportunity to wipe out current traffic laws and replace them with a new set, so what's the minimum "compromise" that we would settle for?

For example if going through a scamera meant "only" a fine & no points I suspect most of the public would be satisfied.

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk

I don't think there's much wrong with road traffic law. There's nothing I'm itching to change (that comes to mind).

It's enforcement practice that's causing all the trouble.

Safety will be served when the link between safe and legal is restored.

Beyond that I do think we should be shooting for 'psychologically sound' road safety policies that tend to improve road user skills, attitudes and responsibilities. That means good information, opportuinities and encouragement toward further training and 'culture development'.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

so are you saying that the curent speed limits are in order and the only issue you have is enforcement by camera,

if it is its a first admission of being a 100% anti camera site

_________________
now retired

Cameras ARE responsible for thowing out the 'reality test' that was available to all previous speed enforcement systems. I've long been calling speed limits 'excellent law' being destroyed by excessive enforcement.

In earlier times a copper had to believe that you were worth nicking. Now it's just a number.



Not really. We've long blamed cameras for undermining real road safety. But that's not the beginning and the end of it.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

But that would if anything increase the temptation for revenue raising via cameras and still have virtually all of the negative road safety effects.

I think it's in the nature of any campaign that it is always pushing in a particular direction but never quite gets to its ultimate objective.

I probably disagree with Paul in that I can see a role for a limited number (<1000 in the whole of the the UK) of clearly signposted fixed cameras, but I am happy he is pushing in the right direction.

I do however believe that all mobile enforcement must involve stopping the alleged offender at the time of the offence, so Talivans have to go.

Personally I would see the restoration of pre-1990 levels of traffic policing, and a return to sensible, consistent speed limit setting on the lines of DoT Circular Roads 1/93 as equal objectives to the decimation or removal of speed cameras.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

So what's your "happy medium"?



Assuming all of these are in 30 limits I might agree with that

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk

So what's your "happy medium"?

a balance between what was, what is and what can be learned from what has happened, since posting here my eyes have been opened to lets say some dodgy tactics for which we all get slated

i have always maintained a stance on 30mph limits, but with the huge surge in demand for residential concern sites, the criteria under the DFT for deployment of fixed cameras cannot be met, hence the need for mobile vans

_________________
now retired

Well I suppose going back to the days before we had cameras would be a start. The biggest problem with cameras is that they are placed where it's safe to speed.

But even if they were placed in, for example in residential roads, where it really isn't safe to exceed 30 they still switch the driver's mind over to what numerical speed he/she is driving at, even if the driver isn't driving at the limit. And it's that distraction which does not help road safety - perhaps the exception being boy racers.

I wonder if perhaps there should be a change in the law where speed limits aren't absolute limits (ie 71 in a 70 = speeding) and simply have police use their discretion and educate drivers on the fact that speed limits are not targets. That could mean that a police car could stop a car doing 30 in a narrow busy high street or doing 60 on a poor quality rural road even thought it's not speeding.

I can see a role for a limited number of fixed speed cameras too. BUT this barking mad widespread 'speed kills' culture MUST be dismantled. And the only way to dismantle it is to scrap ALL cameras.

We have 'road safety professionals' with 12 years in who have never known anything else. If any cameras are allowed to remain the damaging culture will remain and we will have failed to reverse the rot.

It's too late for half measures.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Yes, if it had been done properly from the first place. But cameras were introduced without any serious thought as to what their effect would be.


Well, I've put my money where my mouth is

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Exactly.


Or even where my mouth is.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

This also applies to camera warning signs & dummy/not working cameras - just as bad as the "real" thing



They could stop them now on the basis of dangerous/careless driving (if of course there were any police cars about!). I'm not too sure about the risk of opening up all speed limits as "advisory", there's still that minority out there who could create havoc.

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk

I don't agree with the use of an arbitrary speed limit as a precautionary measure. People who are driving dangerously should be charged with dangerous driving. People who aren't, shouldn't.

However, if we *are* going to have people punished purely on the basis of numerical speed, then imo the enforcement limit should be set substantially above the speed that a normal sensible driver would consider safe for the conditions.

If we're going to apply penalties that are appropriate for dangerous behaviour then they should only be applied for behaviour that is clearly potentially dangerous. Small variations in speed do not usually cause a transition from clearly safe to clearly dangerous behaviour. In this context I'd consider a 20% variation 'small'. If it is clearly safe to drive at the speed limit, then I'd say that it is typically not clearly dangerous to drive up to 20% faster. A margin of (say) 20% is also something that any normal sensible driver who was intending to stay within the limit, can be confident that they will stay inside, without making any particular effort to monitor their speed.

Speed limit compliance shouldn't be something that should be important to drivers, because imo it's not important to road safety. Drivers should be paying attention to the things that are important.

_________________
Peter Humphries (and a green V8S)

For experienced and responsible drivers I would agree.

But not all drivers are experienced and responsible. I reckon that the novices really do need 'clear speed limits'. The irresponsible can easily be identified by trafpol, and I'm in favour of giving trafpol laws that are easy-to-use against them.

I don't see any practical way of having limits for some classes of road user, but not for others. So I reckon we're stuck with fixed speed limits and intelligent enforcement.

I'd very much like the most skilled drivers to be able to earn a speed limit exemption. That would be a strong motivator to improve standards.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

But impossible to enforce..

So we come back to having limits but more sensibly set - but most importantly with enforcement based on careless/dangerous driving by real trafpol.

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk

Tricky perhaps, but also not actually impossible. I'd intended that statement to show as linked to the one above implying that it was impractical.

We do have differential speed limits by vehicle class. Different driving entitlements from various tests. (manual / automatic / car / motorbike / full licence / provisional.) In Northern Ireland they have special speed limits for newly qualified drivers.

And of course emergency services drivers do have a blanket speed limit exemption (subject to need and travel purpose).

So not impossible...

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I would be happy if I could drive around in the sensible manner that I do and not have to worry about the occasional blip in my standards resulting in such a relatively harsh penalty.
Leaving the cameras in place but raising the threshold to, say, 30% above the limit, i.e, 39 in a 30; 65in a 50; 91in a 70 would allow me to do so with more than sufficient lee-way to be comfortable and still catch the completely wreckless individuals who make the roads genuinely unsafe.

This does not mean I am advocating driving right up to the thresholds.The police should still be there to make sure this doesn't happen (like they used to be). I am simply offering a compromise which will allow the cameras to stay in place (which I am totally against) and let me go back to driving in the safe, relaxed manner in which I did so before they turned me into a paranoid, frustrated driver (sometimes bordering on aggressive). Only the truly dangerous would be 'policed' by camera.

No accidents caused and only 2 speed tickets in 28 years (driving up to 44k per year at the peak and throughout Europe) must say something. And I do admit to driving above the limits virtually all the time.

My prefered choice of compromise, which would allow for some face saving (after all, they are hardly likely to admit to getting it so wrong for so long) would be to introduce tougher driver training and test, then reduce the cameras on the grounds that they would not be required when drivers are better trained to a higher standard.
Falling accident figures would back this up - however the government would be short of revenue too!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

That would give HMG a bit of a headache, back to hitting fags, booze , petrol income tax - how many lost deposits would that create ??



Perhaps this is the way driving standards would have gone if those that COULD teach, did it for a bit of pin money and the pride of seeing decent driving standards perpepuated, with other old fashioned virtues had not been forced out to make way for the high priced production line ,teach to pass the test, not drive, driving schools.

In other words ,Ernest, i agree totally with your idea.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

The problem with your suggestion is that there is no single 'safe speed for the conditions' which applies to all drivers - in fact, not even for the same driver. The devlopment of speeding as a strict liability offence provided a convenient tool for police to prosecute on a 'proxy' charge for unsafe behaviour. The problem with the speed cameras is that the critical 'unsafe behaviour' test is wholly absent. That may have been OK if they had been used in moderation - but they weren't. Similarly, the self-incrimination violation represented by s.172 was probably acceptable, used in moderation and where really necessary (as was the case in the pre-speed camera era). What we see now is the widespread, systematic use of a power which was only ever intended to be used sparingly. That amounts to subversion of the law.