Safe Speed Forums

As part of my job, I collect traffic speed data regularly (though not for speed camera purposes).

I talk to local residents about the affect passing traffic has on them (speeding or not) as well as to motorists. I also work at the roadside in all traffic conditions and witness good, appalling and indifferent driver behaviour.

It seems to me that campaigning about whether speed cameras are a good or bad thing is is perhaps missing the issue.

I believe much more careful thought and consultation should go into the initial setting of speed limits. This would be time consuming and difficult (bear in mind that most people think it is their right to drive past other peoples' houses at speeds they would consider inappropriate outside their own house), but might lead to slightly wider acceptance of the safety merit of a limit.

But once a speed limit has been set, that is the MAXIMUM speed permitted by LAW and exceeding this is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE ... for ANYONE - whether they are or consider themselves to be amongst our safest drivers or not.

Enforcement means are immaterial - whether it is by machine or human.

The simple way to avoid any penalty is to drive at or under the speed limit.

So perhaps people should campaign to change speed limits which are blatantly inappropriate instead. I agree that some could safely be raised. Some may need to be reduced. The needs of other road users, as well as motorists need to be taken into account - including the need to encourage an environment more condusive to sustainable modes of transport. Residents also have the right not to feel their lives are "blighted" by traffic.

Then OBEY them! Accept that a high self-assessment of driving ability is not a lawful excuse to exceed the limit and that doing so necessarily puts others at greater personal risk than not doing so. Michael Schumacher driving at 35mph is more dangerous than Michael Schumacher driving at 30mph.

If sensible speed limits are set, there could be no cause for whingeing accusations of "persecution".

I would suggest that cameras are allowed to continue the work of speed limit and red light enforcement and that the traffic police are allowed to concentrate on what they do best - tackling up on poor/unskilled/dangerous driver behaviour (whether above or below the speed limit).

I do drive - both for work and pleasure. I also walk to work and cycle regularly and live in a town centre, so I'm not arguing from any personal vested interest.

I'm just an idealist, who thinks the roads should be a safe environment for all users to share; permitting quick and efficient transport for all and that speeding should be seen as socially unacceptable risk-taking.

I agree, to an extent.

I don't really mind speed cameras on NSL single carriageways, where 60 mph is usually a decent maximum speed to be going at.

But it's when they use them to enforce 40 mph limits on rural dual carriageways that it really does seem like a money-making exercise rather than anything to do with road safety.

So yes, if there was a full assessment of all speed limits, and they were set reasonably, then speed cameras would be much less of an issue.

The other option that I quite like is to set all camera thresholds to the speed limit + 30%. That way, normal drivers don't have to stare fixatedly at the speedo since there would be a decent amount of leverage, but nutters going far too fast would be caught.

Hi Pstroud,

Anyone connected with road safety is always welcome here.

I have read your post carefully and it seems to me that it boils down to an acceptence of the idea that a speed limit is a safety limit.

But however carefully set, speed limits cannot ever be safety limits, and if we had a nation of drivers sticking to the speed limits we should expect to see many more speed related deaths. The point is that the large majority of accidents do not include exceeding a speed limit, while the large majority of accident avoidences (and there are many tens of millions) involve adjusting speed to suit the conditions. Try these Safe Speed pages...

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/tiger.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speeding.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speedlimits.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html

I'll be pleased to answer any questions, but I am 100% convinced that too much emphasis on speed limit compliance has already seriously affected drivers' abilities to avoid accidents to the extent that 6,000 are dead (who would not have been if the pre-1993 trends had continued).

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

But, by definition, any speed limit can never be any more than a rough approximation of the maximum safe speed on a particular stretch of road. Conditions can vary dramatically due to time of day, day of the week, weather etc. and there is also the question (more relevant on rural than urban roads) of differing driver and vehicle capabilities. This is why considerable discretion needs to be exercised in the enforcement of speed limits.

If speed limits were set such that it was effectively never safe to exceed them, they would be in most places considerably higher than at present, and it would mean that for much of the time, speeds some way below the posted limit were still dangerous, which would give out a confusing and unhelpful safety message.

Speed limits must be set on a consistent and credible basis, but must also not be enforced in a robotic, unthinking manner.

Regards,

Peter

_________________
"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

I agree that archaic limits need to be reviewed and where necessary revised, but being time consuming and difficult, and therefore costly, it's probably the least attractive solution to the DfT, partnerships etc.
Then we'd have exactly the same situation as we have right now, except that a lot of money would have been spent reviewing limits. The only practical way of having an absolute limit with zero tolerance enforcement would be to set the limit unrealistically high, say the 95th or 96th percentile, and simply throw the book at anyone who goes over on the basis that 95% will have been below the limit anyway. But then you'd lose the value of the posted limit being a guide to inexperienced drivers, or those on unfamiliar roads. Surely a combination of realistic limits and discretionary enforcement by trained police would be best.
I'd prefer as well as rather than instead. Certainly some should be raised, and undoubtably a number could reasonably be reduced. There's a least one school I can think of on a 40mph section that really ought to be lowered to 30 IMO, or better yet have variable limits for times when the kids are going in and out. I'd also argue for some more national consistency. I can think of several places where similar roads have different limits simply due to being in different borough/county councils.How does it necessarily increase the risk to others? That's pretty unequivocal. Exceeding the limit may increase the risk to others, or it sometimes increases it. But to talk of it necessarily increasing the risk suggests that slower is always safer and faster is always riskier. On that basis I'd expect all professional racing drivers to have a life expectancy of about a fortnight. On the subject of which...Not if he's on the autobahn. Okay, I'm sure you meant a road with a 30mph limit. Even then, surely it depends on the circumstances at the time. Schumacher at 35mph in the dry is likely to be safer than Schumacher at 30mph when it's pouring with rain. That's just one variable. Traffic levels, time of day, even what he's driving at the time - surely these factors (and no doubt loads more that I can't think of) would also affect the safe speed.I can't agree with continuing speed cameras, especially given the thread about speedo checking every time we pass one. For many drivers checking the speedo, even if intellectually they know they're not speeding, is probably as instinctive as braking when a traffic light turns red. The big difference is that you can still watch the road while you're braking. Red light cameras make more sense, though I recently came across an article from the states that said a trial of longer amber phases did a better job of cutting light jumping than cameras. The downside of course was that there was no income from longer amber phases. I'll have to see if I can find it.Why is the responsibility for making the roads safe left entirely on the shoulders of motorists? I'd love all roads to be safe for everyone too, but that must mean educating all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists, to a higher standard. To the best of my limited knowledge there is no requirement for such education to be offered to school children or other non-drivers. A younger relative has just been given a copy of the Highway Code for the first time as she is starting to take driving lessons. As a pedestrian and occasional cyclist she has already been a road user for many years, and of course regardless of age we are all pedestrians when not in a car. In 12 years of full time education she has never once been taught her responsibilities as a road user. Not once. It can be argued that this is the duty of parents/guardians, but inevitably a proportion will not bother. Safe road use could so easily be taught in schools - would one lesson each term be too much to ask? Crossing the road without looking, not using an available bridge/subway/pedestrian crossing, wearing dark clothing at night etc - aren't these examples of socially unacceptable risk-taking? Aren't they at least as preventable as speeding? After all, if it's up to me to control my speed when driving, it's surely up to me to be safe when I'm walking.

Speed Limits have no effect on safety. It is driver error that causes accidents.
Why should we reduce speed limits around schools, are we accepting that children have right of way on roads. It would be far better that children were better educated on road use. For those children that are too young to understand, the parents should be prosecuted for allowing them into the road.

Speed limits have constantley been reduced, increasing congestion. Every time they reduce a speed limit, it increases our journey time. Putting more cars on the road at any one given time.
Locals should have no say on the speed limit of a road. The limit should be set allowable for the layout. Not how the neighbors feel it should be. This is complelty bizzare to suggest that because you live in the street you know the safest speed.

_________________
Steve

Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2004 4:20 pm Post subject: re:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[quote=orange] I agree, to an extent.

I don't really mind speed cameras on NSL single carriageways, where 60 mph is usually a decent maximum speed to be going at [/quote]

There are many many NSL single carriageways where speeds far higher than 60 in good visibility and weather are safe.

Limits like laws should be for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools. And so should enforcement.

If anything, I'd say that roads with the blanket NSL are more likely to be candidates for it being acceptable/safe to drive faster, than 30mph urban streets and roads.

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

No, not as such. But if we take a sensibly set limit as a guide to hazard density then it makes sense to temporarily reduce some limits around schools at chucking out time. It's probably not necessary in many cases, but it's likely that there are a few locations where the presence of large numbers of ankle biters justifies a limit of 30 mph on a road that is normally safe at 40 or 50. In other cases any potential problem could better be solved by engineering. A school near to us is on a 50 mph road, but no variable limit is needed because there was enough space to put in a foot bridge. The spotty morons don't always use it, but if they end up as a veneer on the tarmac because they can't be bothered to use it then I agree that's their look out.

Absolutely. All this "I want a 30 mph limit past my house" is dangerous NIMBY nonsense.

If you live on a fairly narrow road with houses on both sides, then a 30 mph limit is fine.

If you live on a wide road with houses set well back, then a 40 limit is appropriate.

If your house is one of five within a mile, then it's NSL, and you have to warn your kids that vehicles may pass your house at speed.

Speed limits must be set on consistent, national criteria, not ignorant local sentiment.

Regards,

Peter

_________________
"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

It makes more sense to ensure parents comply with road laws. Than penalise or restrict motorist, who pay to put the roads outside the schools in the 1st place.

Crossings (foot bridges) are put in place to prevent children crossing the road in a hazardouse manner. We have supplied the equipment, which is not being used, to counter that we now restrict the innocent motorist.

_________________
Steve

I tried to stop my local council from imposing a lower limit on my street. It was a 30 limit on a quiet cul-de-sac, and no-one ever drives fast along it anyway. (Selecting a safe speed all by themselves! What a radical concept.) They completely ignored a "consultation" and imposed an advisory 20 limit. Yet around the corner, the local school is 100 yards from an NSL, and many people don't bother braking until they are past the school. They couldn't see my reasoning of misdirected resources at all.

The other place in the area where they have imposed one of these limits is by another school. It is a narrow residential road,made wide enough for one car by cars been constantly parked on one side of it. Anybody driving at 20mph aloong this stretch of road needs prosecuting for dangerous driving. The whole exeercise is another ill-thought out attempt to appear to be doing something about road safety, when in effect they have just wasted an awful lot of my money for sweet FA