Safe Speed Forums

I've refrained from joining in thus far, but here goes:

I think cameras DO have an effect on peoples driving around urban areas, in that:

a) people who INTENTIONALLY drive at an excessive speed for the conditions are constantly on the look out for them (mainly boy racers) and rarely get caught by them

b) I suspect many of those who don't really think about their speed normally also look out for them, but tend to still think "30 is safe"

c) people who DO drive at a safe speed for conditions (frequently lower than the limit) also find themselves otherwise distracted when there is the possibility that, at that time, a safe speed might be higher than the posted limit

What interests me is WHO DOES GET CAUGHT? In urban areas I suspect they are the rest of category b) above, ie people who don't pay attention to what is going on around them!

BUT, as far as I can see:

a) there has been no massive reduction in urban accidents (and an increase in those involving children)

b) the boy racers are still happily racing around between the cameras in a lethal manner

c) experienced and aware drivers (who might well otherwise exceed the limit) are not getting caught because, like the boy racers, they are paying attention to the cameras

(This ignores all the stolen cars, drunks etc as well of course)

I suspect that out of town a fairly similar state of affairs applies, but with many more drivers in category c) being prosecuted due to mobile cameras etc. However many drivers have sat navs etc with cameras and mobile sites in them and put up with the distraction caused. SO, again it is those in category b) - not paying attention - who get caught most. (These are NOT usually the "speed maniacs" but "joe and julie soap" who are doing 68 in a 60 limit) Again where is the evidence this helps?

Lastly, I think I'm right is saying our safest roads are still the motorways? There, "mild speeding" is endemic, and most enforcement is targetted at those who drive inappropriately for the conditions - where cameras HAVE been used on motorways, no real benefit (at best) has been shown.


"Needing to speed" implies a conscious decision to break a limit. I'd suggest that category c) drivers don't do that consciously, but just drive safely, category a) drivers DO speed consciously but try really hard not to get caught, and category b) drivers - who get caught the most - are caught because they are not paying attention, not because they "need to speed".

That's why I support the view that fixation of numeric speed is ineffective as means of improving safety, as driver inattention is our biggest threat - and they are the ones who keep getting done for speeding (without impact on their negative - inattentive - behaviour)

Madam. The police have no intention of prizing away my driving licence from my hot hands on this steerin' wheel. That's the submarinated one's job - but I have no intention of driving very fast at danger spots anyway and that includes the safe place with the scamera! But you should learn to be more observant anyway"

"In a lot of places"...true..but the other side of the coin dictates there are also a lot of places where a glance at the speedo does no harm whatsoever...especially on approach to such a place as an hairpin bend or blind bend/summit.
I would like to apply the A in COAST and anticipate such things ergo a glance at the speedo every now and then (when I'm not busy avoiding that ditch of course) would prepare me for further eventualities.

Paul I am not dismissing anything...honestly I do...I really do understand where you are coming from...but make no mistake, I do not agree with your stance...I reserve the right to form my own opinions and not have opinions of others thrust upon me just because everyone else and his dog wants me to.
If perchance I ever fall foul of those objects you all so vehemently reckon are not working, or witness an occasion where they are not..then my opinions may change...until something affects me I'll not give it any mind...selfish outlook...perhaps but it is my outlook to have.
You are happy with your stance on the matter and I with mine, so lets agree to differ and move on.
There are no winners or losers here...just opinions...get over it...I have.

I have no intention of converting anyone around to my way of thinking but I would expect a little courtesy in reciprocating that feeling....rather than everyone arguing the toss each time I stray from the accepted path of belief on these boards. A simple "I disagree because..." statement is all that would be required but no...we get into personal attacks and ridicule levelled at the posters of such blasphemy. It really is not the way to win friends or influence people having an "If I want your opinion I'll give it to you " kinda attitude.

there was no place for pedestrians to gain access, without trespassing across miles of fields and climbing over barriers, and it wasn't even in an area where a dear may run out for instance

my apologies, Big Tone...not taking the p*** (honest) - but this conjured up some wonderful images
I really must get this imagination seen to,,,

COAST? IG told me it's about "reading the road ahead". All the road markings and signs are telling me the "story of this road and are there to help me rather than hinder!"

TPTB now seem to have gone mad with their signs and road painting schemes, to the point where most drivers are likely to ignore a good deal of it, thereby failing to benefit from certain features that could help them. To me that seems counterproductive.

Yeah, like advisory cycle lanes which can be completely ignored. (The rules are effectively the same as if they weren't there)

I think that is less true now than it used to be.

TPTB now seem to have gone mad with their signs and road painting schemes, to the point where most drivers are likely to ignore a good deal of it, thereby failing to benefit from certain features that could help them. To me that seems counterproductive.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

with no brain or even understanding of the real world beyond the stone they live under

I occasionally will stop very close to the kurb to block a cyclist

johnsher - I only do it if I know for a fact that I will have to pass the cyclist again in short order (like someone is turning right in front of me or something). TBH its really irritating playing cat and mouse with cyclists and it can't be safe...

If I was crawing in slow traffic and the cyclist was genuinely making faster progress than me then I don't.

But you can't know if the cyclist is intending to turn off or arrive at his destination.

And you can't know that you're not making him miss a green light.