Safe Speed Forums

Yes, in Germany there are quite strict Jaywalking laws. Step off the pavement when the red man is showing, or when there is a crossing nearby which you could use but decide not to, and you face a fine. This has the effect of teaching people not to jaywalk, but to think about where and how they cross the road.

Sure that might be true in some circumstances, but don't you think that's a rather sweeping statement?


Depends on what kind of road; what was it?

Your view seems to be strongly influenced by this camera in your street. Well, a speed detector appeared recently in our village just 50 yards or so from my house. It certainly has an effect; you can actually watch traffic slowing down.

But this ain't no Gatso - it is a speed-activated warning sign. No fines, no bureaucracy, no decent people losing their jobs for a momentary lapse.

Doesn't that blow a hole in your love affair with the speed camera?

Then surely a paltry fine and 3 points from a speed camera was not sufficient punishment.

It was an excellent correction to my sloppy driving habit since I learned from it, modified my behaviour and resolved never to be so silly again. I'm thankful I didn't learn a harsher lesson.

And if the law were set sensibly, people wouldn't be caught for breaking it as often or so unjustly (edit to add "as often")

---





Oh that's ok then. I tell you what let's all drive at 15mph cos then it doesn't matter if we hit people.

The point of SS is that speed should be relevant to the condition, but you can't set a limit and deem it safe at all times, 5mph is not safe if a pedestrian walks out in front of you. The point is driver quality. If I can drive at 50mph whilst being so in control and aware I don't hit anyone, than 50mph was safe. On another journey, if I hit someone, 50mph was not safe. Same applies to 40, 30, 20, 10 and 5.


Didn't the first pedestrian road death occur when the car was travelling at 4mph in the early 1900's...

My definition of "the conditions" includes the posted limit, not least because other people may be making judgements on the reasonable assumption that others will be obeying the law. Don't forget, most cameras are set at significantly above the limit. ACPO guidelines on a NSL road are 69mph. Allowing for speedo error, that's got to be at least 70 indicated.

Is it not reasonable to expect other people to abide by the law?

If you feel the speed limit is too low- lobby to change it!

Don't, please, defend drivers who flout the law, pick and choose which parts of the social contract they obey and driver above the limit.

Yes weren't you lucky. Personally I don't like the idea of people who are driving dangerously being let off with a speed cam snap.

Not really. As Robin pointed out, really danderous drivers can be heavily fined


I've already answered this. Don't you think it is rather disengenuous for you to repeat that statement without answering my subsequent response?

And this sorry state of affairs will continue until the powers-that-be start coming to grips with the real causes of accidents, instead of merely focusing on the one parameter which is easy to measure.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Wrong, enforcement starts at 68mph. 10%+2mph.

We are lobbying, isn't that what you've been taking exception at!?

You can spout your emotional rhetoric about social contracts and the poor children, but there is no substantive evidence showing that exceeding the speed limit is over-represented in the crash statistics, indeed it is extremely under-represented, nor is there any showing that speed cameras are an effective means of reducing them.

Agreed, but not on all roads. It is accepted that there are types of road where drivers will drive at above the speed limit, yet it is done so with regard to others. This makes the rest of your post a non-sequitur.

I don’t know if that’s true. Even if so, would you not agree that the camera policy made it worse? Have you seen the infamous youtube video of the moped riders racing each other in a very dangerous and anti-social manner, yet said "we're too slow to be done for speeding"?

It is true, no the roads are not more dangerous, I don't watch Youtube.



Isn’t that exactly what is happening now (‘residents are clamouring......’)? Aren’t the dodgy stats used to portray camera effectiveness making the situation needlessly worse?

Nope. Residents react to what they perceive, tabloid editors pander to prejudice. people are fed up with speeders and take action, the tabloid agenda is rather less altruistic.



Absolutely, yet the sad figures for children are now on the up when they used to be on the down, even though limits are only on the down and camera enforcement is ever higher – how can this be? Where are we failing?

Traffic growth accounts in the large part for this, accidents at camera sites are down with no evidence of displacement.



Not at all.

You don't think anti-social behaviour should be censured?

I’m against drivers using roads, especially residential ones, as racetracks; nobody on this site will disagree with that sentiment. However, speed cameras still allow this; trafpol do not.


Trafpol cannot replace cameras and it ain't ever gonna happen.


Apologies for missing this before, there's only one of me remember!

If you only use a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail, eventually

Why you not use the "quote" button. It make your style look like someone we "met" already


But no matter

We really quite friendly .. honestly But do you think you can call Paulie either Paul or "the late gentleman -Mr Smith" as he was a really nice man to chat to on line und in person.




But using this very same logic of "heightened security leading to more risk taking" - then you sayt you all feel the safer for having a speed cam.. so much so that you give the impression that the Mamas let their children play on the road.. would seem to suggest that placing the speed cam there ist not exactly a good idea

I am not posting abuse to you .. by the way. I just asking you to explain und so far you have not told me what you think of a cyclist breaking the law or the speed limit given even I can manage above 20 mph on a good day around here... (OK .. so I go downhill a bit und I cheat on the climbs as I hitch a life. ) not to tell IG und the Mad Doc .. )


But I not ever been done for speedin' as I don't tend to .. unless on track or back in Germany where it so

But I do hear from Krissi who manage to sweet talk the lady in question to IAM course

Her patient's "Mama" visit pal in one of the Dales villages. Pooch scoffs a chocolate from the Xmas tree. Pure cocoa choc not good for dogs. Krissi treats the dog - she make it sick it all up und then give some "clean up doggy system pills"

Lady see surgery photo of sassy Capri in driveway... und her sinful 4x4 und some other dubious items

Lady tell her about the SPECS on A1 roadworks und how concentrating on the speed cause her to miss exit - but how she not like cruise control as she "feel car run aways with her" - which we agree .. it has that "not in charge feel und we dislike as result"

But it was the "concentrating on not going above in any one of the pairs" und missing exit sign - und then having to double back with cruise control to assist this time!" which sort of sum up the way these things ain't working here.


Krissi being Krissi did take the trouble to observe her driving in rural area after sweet talking about the merits of IAM. She tell me the lady was safe enough .. just a bit of "polish on some points" und a new Advanced Driver hit the sassy roads

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

there is no substantive evidence showing that exceeding the speed limit is over-represented in the crash statistics, indeed it is extremely under-represented, nor is there any showing that speed cameras are an effective means of reducing them.

TRL 421:

The authors looked at 300 sections of road, made 2 million observations of speed and got 10,000 drivers to complete questionnaires. They found that

the faster the traffic moves on average, the more crashes there are (and crash frequency increases approximately with the square of average traffic speed)

the larger the spread of speeds around the average, the more crashes there are .

It is accepted that there are types of road where drivers will drive at above the speed limit, yet it is done so with regard to others.


Accepted by whom?

Not by me, I expect people to obey the law and I believe that's a reasonable assumption.

The only factor mitigating against a blabket 10mph limit is that people
want to go faster than that, which is why the Red Flag Act was
repealed. So there has to be a balance. Some drivers seem to think the
balance should be that they can go as fast as they like and bugger
everybody else (a US-style compromise: do it my way or else). I think
that the current speed limits are a more or less reasonable
compromise, as long as people keep to them. Limits go up and down
over time, which is all part of the system of checks and balances.

Compliance with the rules is not some sort of afterthought to safe
driving, it's the starting point.

Do they?
So are you saying that Med Hughes was driving dangerously?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Isn't it funny how these pro-camera types love to conjure up images of boy racers tearing down the high street at insane speeds in order to justify their positions while, in reality, thousands of people are caught for inadvertently going a few mph over an artificially low speed limit on a road with not a pedestrian in sight.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Link please, I have no intention of just taking your word for it, especially with regards to a non-peer reviewed government document.

What of the fact that about 5% of KSIs have speed in excess of the speed limit as a contributory factor, when at the most conservative calculation at least 50% of drivers speed regularly?

It doesn't actually, speed limits apply to motorised vehicles only.

A policeman could not do a cyclist for speeding on a public road, furious cycling only.

Isn't it funny how these pro-camera types love to conjure up images of boy racers tearing down the high street at insane speeds in order to justify their positions while, in reality, thousands of people are caught for inadvertently going a few mph over an artificially low speed limit on a road with not a pedestrian in sight.

I mentioned my own, personal experience. I can't make up other scenarios outside my own experience if I am relating a personal, direct anecdote.

Also, whether speeding kills or not is entirely irrelevant. It is, and has been since long before I started driving, illegal. There has always been a possibility of being fined if you speed. Speeding has been an endorseable offence for as long as I can remember. All that's changed is that the chances of getting away with it have reduced slightly. There has always been an alternative to speeding: driving legally. It makes very little difference to overall journey times and no difference at all to then ability to make a given journey.


There is no doubt that in general a driver travelling at the speed limit is at less risk, and poses less risk to others, than one exceeding the limit. The reasons for this are very obvious. There is also the inconvenient fact that the probability of fatality in a crash rises with the fourth power of speed. In other words, speed kills.


Which is why cameras are such a good idea: they do the mundane work of speed enforcement (and red light and bus lane enforcement, mobiole phone use, picking your nose, reading a map, getting fellated by the missus) leaving real plod to look at offences which require judgement to detect.

The government has nothign to do with the assignment of officers
between divisions in a police force. That's the function of the
police authority. Who have 31 priority areas, only one of which has
anything to do with roads. Perhaps if people were a little less keen
to make every general election a Dutch auction on tax rates there
would be enough money to pay the police a living wage, but cameras
have nothing to do with it.


Safer cars having an impact?


One small problem: fatalities are still dropping steadily for every
road user group except motorcyclists. How does "safer cars" explain
that? And the fatality rtend is dropping steadily on those roads
likely to have speed cameras, but not on motorways and rural minor
roads where cameras are rare.

Enforcing limits on rural A roads will give us something else: a
reduction in danger to vulnerable road users. These roads are the
least safe for pedestrians and cyclists, rarely have footways, and
often have speeding drivers. There are nearly 60% more fatalities on rural roads than urban roads. Rural A roads have the highest fatality figure of any road type.