Safe Speed Forums

I think we can say that we have treated the road safety policy for a broken leg, unfortunately, it died about 8 years ago and no one has realised the corpse is really stinking.

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."

But you can't ignore this aspect how ever "microscopic" it may or may not be. To further your analogy, there'sno point in replacing a diseased liver if you wash over the patients alcoholism.




But it isn't the wrong safety factor, it is one safety factor. Now I agree that simply concentrating on speed at the expense of everything else is detrimental - but you have to concentrate on speed *as well as* everything else. Simply swinging to the opposite extreme simply isn't going to help.



But no accident has one cause - all accidents arise from a set of contributory factors. You deal with all of these factors (within reason, of course.)



I'd be intrested to find out how this conclusion was arrived at.



Indeed.

You have glossed over my point. In some circumstances (and roadworks are a good example of this), it is impossible for the driver to determine the safe and appropriate speed for a section of road. After all, how would a driver be able to see that the foundations for the CRSF haven't set yet, or that there are people working under/alongside the structure they are working on? So we have speed limits in these cases, which inform the driver of the maximum speed that is appropriate. But people ignore these. So what do you propose we do about this?

In general I would say the possibility of on-the-spot enforcement by traffic police (maybe using covert cameras to determine speed) would be preferable to fixed enforcement by Gatso or SPECS.

Have you looked at the TRL report suggesting the number of accidents was higher in zones enforced by fixed 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

I'm out and about, so I'll do a quick reply to one aspect for now. I'll deal with the rest later this evening.



Short answer: Stop crying wolf and build trust.

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

Absolutely. But your analogy is not in the ball park of the relative importance. I know that government keeps painting 'speeding' as a big killer, but their spin does not fit the facts. For example, they tell us around 60% of vehicles are 'speeding' on most road types - yet the same department claims that only 12% of crashes have excessive speed as a contributory factor. And we know to only take 30% of the 12% as 'speeding' - so on the face of it it would appear that 'speeding' is around 15 times (60%/4%) safer than 'not speeding'.

Contrast that with drunk drivers - thought to be around 2% of the traffic and 25% of the crashes.

Misunderstanding alert! Now I'm NOT trying to claim that 'speeding' is 15 times safer than 'not speeding'. but the fact is that speeding and crashes tend to take occur in different times and places from crashes. Which is very logical and helpful when you think about it. Drivers speed when the road is clear - and why not? But they slow down where there are hazards and increased risk. Naturally where there are few hazards there are few crashes.



Actually 'the speed limit' barely qualifies as a safety factor. It's more of a proxy for inappropriate speed which is a serious safety factor. Unfortunately we are promoting the importance of the proxy beyond the original important real parameter.



Absolutely. And you put the factors in proper priority. But we're way way out with out (national) priorities right now. Speeding is endemic, but it is NOT a big crash contributory factor.

Some attitude and skills problems tend to produce 'dangerous speeding' and high speed crashes. But we'll never fix those with speed enforcement (think joyrider in stolen car for example).



There's sample data from TRB in Canada (not online), Durham (reported in press) and Avon and Somerset: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/aands.html and http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pilkington.html that all come to the same 70% inappropriate + 30% exceeding a speed limit = 100% of 'excessive speed'.



If there are sections of roadway where drivers cannot determine an appropriate speed the first part would be true. But I bet out of the nation's 380,000 km of roads we'd be hard pressed to find 10km at any one time that really met that spec.

As I wrote above - we have to build a system that is worthy of respect.

At present it's all become a ridculous game of evasion and capture with drivers trying to avoid cameras and cameras operators tryng to catch drivers. Road safety was forgotten long ago in the money making dash to enforce the law.

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

I do agree with that, but that takes up more resources that simply aren't there.



I can't say I have, I would appreciate a link if it is online.

I would speculate that much of the problem would stem from drivers breaking in an attempt to evade prosecution. I would be interested to hear how far this problem exists, and how far the use of SPECs cameras with signs bearing the legend "Average speed check" had reduced this problem.




I would suggest that they speed when they *think* they can get away with it, which is a subtle difference.

Now, when they're right, there isn't a problem (apart from perhaps any limit being too low). However, there are circumstances in which drivers don't, or can't, accurately determine that the road is clear. Which is why we have limits - to ensure drivers have a ceiling that they know they shouldn't exceed. It isn't a substitute for drivers driving at an appropriate speed of course - but it is a mechanism to help ensure the driver at least at somewhere near the appropriate speed.




I don't think anyone would suggest otherwise. The speed limit isn't some some magic number under which anyone will be safe - it is merely a legal device to help keep speeds below the maximum that is safe. Of course, there are problems when this device (like any traffic control device) is over-used - but there is a place for it. Yet people routinely break these limits. I appreciate mis-use of these limits is part of the problem, however, the attitudes of drivers are part of the problem, which is why we need enforcement.




Agreed - however, I don't see why this should preclude the idea that limits and enforcement are part of the toolkit to keep speeds at an appropriate level.




I don't think anyone is suggesting that that would.




Data is meaningless without knowing how the data was collated.



I'd suggest motorway roadworks would be a good place to start.



That cuts both ways. Yes, the limits and enforcement has to be respectable. But drivers have to resect the limits.



It takes two to tango.

Additionally, there is an important point to speed limits that you seem to be missing. They aren't simply there to control speeds to "safe" levels, they are also there to control the consequences in the event of an accident. After all, accidents will happen, we are all human and will make mistakes.

This is why we have limits eg in roadworks or in town. After all, no doubt it is perfectly possibly to drive in essentially straight line between two lines of cones at high speed. But you'd be less likely to get it wrong at 40 or 50, and if you did have an accident, you'll do less damage at 40 or 50. After all, the untensioned CRSF might just restrain your vehicle if its doing no more than 50 - it probably won't if its doing speeds as high as 80.

This is turning into a monster and I'm concerned that the important stuff is getting lost in the complexity. According I've cut this reply to a single essential point.

This is NOT a strategy to avoid answering any of your points - and if there's something you think I should have answered, then please say so and I'll do so.



Despite the fact that it seems 'obvious' there's nothing in the accident data to suggest that a free travelling speed selected by a normal responsible motorist has a significant bearing on average impact speeds. In fact average impact speeds are a tiny fraction of real-world free travelling speeds.

Take this as one example:

Perhaps you think 'speed' might not influence crash frequency but it must influence crash severity. Wrong. Look at child pedestrian fatalities. We've all see the claims - 20% die in 30mph impacts; 80% die in 40mph impacts. We know from surveys that most vehicles are 'speeding' in 30mph zones. So are more than 20% of child pedestrian injuries fatal? In 2004 in built-up areas (30 AND 40mph speed limits) 11,999 child pedestrians were injured and 58 died. The proportion that died was 0.4%. The reason that we didn't kill more than 2,400 (20%) was because drivers slow down in areas of danger and brake before impact. These behaviours are major factors in mitigating impact speeds.
(from: http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/opini ... d=86022006 )

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

Slightly off topic, I know, but, please, ndp, cut the kilometre crap, this is Great Britain, in case you have'nt noticed, we use MILES, and long may we continue to do so.

TC

What I want to ask ndp is:-
Were speed cameras introduced in great numbers as a consequence of traffic police funding problems, or have these funding problems occurred subsequently?

Fair enough



Despite the fact that it seems 'obvious' there's nothing in the accident data to suggest that a free travelling speed selected by a normal responsible motorist has a significant bearing on average impact speeds. In fact average impact speeds are a tiny fraction of real-world free travelling speeds.[/quote]

Whilst that may be true, that doesn't mean it is appropriate to take the chance.



Whilst that may well be true, nevertheless it is perfectly possible that an accident may occur such that it is impossible for a driver to do anything about it without any apparant hazard. Granted, this may be a relatively rare occurance - but it is a reasonable one.

One has to face up to ones fallabilities - it is not necessarily possible to brake before an impact, and even if it is, it is may well be the case that this isn't done for whatever reason (eg simple human error). To be responsible, one has to recognise this and drive accordingly. This is why we have the 30mph ceiling.

I do agree that some of the simplistic statistics quoted by supporters of cameras are unhelpful, however, it is difficult to see what else they can do in this society of soundbites.



FWIW, Paul started the references to km.

Not that it matters, of course - for these purposes we can measure in km, miles, elephants or whatever. Just as long as we compare like with like, the units are essentially irrelevant.

And we usually don't use miles. Indeed, practicality is the only reason why miles (and yards) have been retained on road signs - all the designing and such is done in metric.



Thats a false dillema, and besides, does it matter?

Even if you had vastly greater resources than at present, there would still be circumstances in which a speed camera may prove cost effective than a "real" policeman. It would simply be wasteful to go to the expense of providing a police patrol in such circumstances.

The topic started off as speed restrictions in "dormant" road works - as such i take that to be road works that are almost complete/complete and awaiting the removal of plant etc. No workers and unless there's a sign to say why there's a need for a speed limit , why do we need one?
I see too much of this - roads coned off -no workers =traffic jams.It's like "police slow"/danger road works " signs left up - crying wolf.

Either there are road works posing a danger to somebody/something and then lets have some signs to inform drivers or it's high time someone started to clamp down on these firms .

_________________
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

Absolutely - and I know it is rare. But see what we learn? We learn that crash energies are massively mitigated by driver responses. We learn that the physics are subservient to the psychology.

And we don't have far to go to know that strategies founded on attempts to mitigate crash physics are doomed to fail IF they have a susstantial negative 'footprint' in the psychological domain.

The risk is that we will dull those responses on which we depended and average crash energies (and or crash frequencies) will increase (despite any possible reduction in vehicle speeds).



Agreed. It is also why we musn't become obssessed with it, because if we do:

a) we have less attention left for the road ahead and
b) some of us will be less inclined to slow down when conditions require that we should.



Messages about skills, attitudes and responsibilities are what's needed to get more out of drivers.

And proper roads policing to deal with the small percentage of nutters and gross incompetents.

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

Yes, I agree that there would still be circumstances in which a speed camera may prove more cost effective than a "real" policeman, but the existence of such circumstances wouldn't in itself justify the wholesale proliferation of speed cameras such as we've seen.

I’ve been driving for 36 years ( 8 years professionally ) without, touch wood, a single accident. The introduction of automated speed enforcement on a vast scale has been the single biggest change in road safety policy in all that time - and it’s only since that change that I’ve seen more near misses than ever before, and am faced with more driving dilemmas than ever before. I’m just an ordinary, careful driver whose record speaks for itself- I'm not a speed merchant - I’m simply interested in understanding what prompted the change in policy.

Of course, it isn't the sign which determines the need for a speed limit, rather the nature of the road, and that of the works. I agree that posted signs to inform drivers of why a limit is in place - sometimes warning and informatory signs already do this (eg in contraflow working), and often additional signs will be provided to this effect (eg "Restrictions due to incomplete safety fence").

However, it isn't always possible to inform drivers of such things - after all, it can hardly essential information, and there is quite enough for drivers to be worrying about without adding yet more signs. And indeed, it doesn't necessarily do the trick - indeed, this was posted earlier in the thread:



Now Paul is quite right to say there needs to be a culture of trust - but as I said, that cuts both ways. If Dixie or whoever decides not to heed the limit and the signs explaining the reasoning behind the limit, then there is little option left other than enforcement and prosecution.




But they would also be mitigated by drivers restraining their speed so that in the event of an accident only an "acceptable" amount of damage is likely to be caused, hence the 30mph limit.



Agreed. I disagree that speed limits and their enforcement, automated or otherwise, necessarily has this negative impact.

Of course, the psychological aspect swings both ways - sometimes the psychological factors encourage higher than appropriate speeds. This is another place for limits - to keep speeds below a real safe maximum, as opposed to a perceived safe maximum.



Indeed, however, that should not and does not preclude requiring drivers to maintain a speed below a specified limit, and enforcing such a restriction.



But again, why is this incompatible with speed cameras?

I grant you, some of the publicity has been somewhat simplistic (but as I said, in these days of soundbites, the general/motoring public are somewhat simple - so what can you do?). And yes, the limit should be treated as a limit, not as a somehow magically safe speed, and publicity needs to emphasise this, and we need to deal with those who drive at dangerously high speeds which happen to be below the limit.

None of that precludes either limits of enforcement of these.



But there is plenty of that. Where I live most of the bus shelters are plastered with various road safety messages ("Check your tyres", "Belt up your child", "Stop for the lollipop man" etc). Yet people still don't bother.

Education isn't a panacea - quite frankly too many people think they are god's gift to motoring. Which is why we need to set limits, and enforcement. Improving ones driving simply isn't enough to encourage an awful lot of people to drive at appropriate speeds - there has to be a penalty for failure to do so.



Of course we need (and lack) that as well. But again, this doesn't preclude the use of cameras.

As an aside, I'd also suggest that people who manage to drive past yellow diamond-grade cameras at fairly significant amounts over the speed limit aren't terribly likely to spot the emerging vehicle, the pedestrian about to step into the road, the cyclist in their blind spot or whatever.



You make it sound like speed cameras are placed willy-nilly, which isn't the case (at least not at present).

Additionally, apparantly cameras make money. If true, this would make them far more cost effective than a traffic officer, who presumably wouldn't be too chuffed if they had to pay for the priveledge of turning up for work.



Which is all very well, but its little more than anecodatal.



To be honest, I don't know what prompted the change in policy.

However, I do know the constraints around enforcement, which do justify use of cameras.

May be this example will concentrate the topic a little.

I drove down to Birmingham on Sunday afternoon between 4pm and 5pm. apart from the 1st and last 5 mles or so, I was on the A38 all the way. as those who travel this road more regularly than i do will know, there are several sets of roadworks along the route. a couple of these (nr Alrewas??) had one lane closed off and a 40mph limit backed up with a scamera. i have no complaints about the that limit, as such.

The set further on (near the A5 and toll road roundabouts?) was a different kettle altogether. a 30mph limit for an entire MILE before the roadworks signed, but no roadworks at all, just a few cones (not enough to close a lane) at the side (not on) of the road in places. the same thing was in place from the northbound direction when i retured at about 10pm.
A competely pointless limit.

A few cones or a line of regularily placed cones which could be moved out to close off a section of road as that becomes necessary? If its the latter, then the limit will be justified for at least some of the time, even if it wasn't necessarily the case as you passed.

As things stand the speed limit system is a bit inflexible. As such it isn't easy simply to chop and change limits, and safety of workers has to take priority over the desires of drivers. And even if it would be possible to revoke or relax the limit while not necessary, you would need the limit in place while workers move the cones out to effect a change in TM. This is a partcularily hazardous time - and you'd have the similar problems when workers moved to change speed limit signs if you were able to chop and change signs.

It is perhaps possible (if not necessarily practical) to have a flexible limit system where limits could be raised and lowered flexible, and (electronic) speed limit signs could be adjusted remotely as appropriate. And this would be a good thing - but we are where we are.

Hi Right on Stackmonkey. I drive the A38 a lot. Tonight just passed through the A38 ( Bassets Pole ) . 30 limit 1 mile from Island no cones no workers for some reason limit extends beyond island. Total limit length is 1.4 miles. I think the work is only on the island itself. The two minutes at 30 on a good 70mph road nearly made lose concentration - just in time to meet any ( non existant )road workers. These limits 1 mile before and 1/3 mile after cause more accidents. I do think the overall road safety should be looked at to include roadworkers AND drivers. TRL595 released through FOI says it all. Accidents caused by excessive speed less than 1 %. and IMO - Safety effort directed at excessive speed 100%. If they can remove road signs / cones then it is just as easy to put the speed limit back to normal. Not using the 85 percentile speed when no cones and no work is in progress is MORE dangerous.

Richard

Strangely enough , parts of Warks ,and certain types of road works , it's part of the contract that cones etc are removed before rush our at night and not put back in till after about 9/9.30 the next day - A444 from/to J3 /M6 springs to mind.Seems to work ok .

_________________
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

'As things stand the speed limit system is a bit inflexible. As such it isn't easy simply to chop and change limits, and safety of workers has to take priority over the desires of drivers. And even if it would be possible to revoke or relax the limit while not necessary, you would need the limit in place while workers move the cones out to effect a change in TM. This is a partcularily hazardous time - and you'd have the similar problems when workers moved to change speed limit signs if you were able to chop and change signs. '

Is there not a case for electronic speed limit signs that can be re-set as required at roadworks? 30 or 40 when it's required, switch back to 60 or whatever at other times. They're used on the M25 variable speed sections so there's no reason they can't be used in roadworks.

Totally agree Thub Its priority again where there is a will there is a way. Its the concentration on Roadworker safety and speed limits I worry about. If the safety issue was looked at as a whole lots more live would be saved. If you look at the CAUSES of accidebts in TRL595 little is being done to get to the root causes. The easiest and least expensive route is being taken driven by the health and safety at work act. I have been deeply involved with the old British Coal Safety and They took safety as a series of parts ALL considered. Then they also looked at the WHOLE PICTURE. It worked very well. I think that current road safety overall is LESS than the SUM of its parts................. But we just look at the parts

Richard