Safe Speed Forums

Thank you Peter. To Jolly Roger - this is exactly what I meant by rigid adherence.

They change driving behaviour - quite. You have hit the nail on the head there, gameboy. The point is made consistently throughout this website that driver behaviour is crucial. You appear to take it as read that driver response to automatic speed enforcement is to slow down and thereby become safer. An opposing point of view is that on balance there is no such safety benefit and possibly that there exists even a negative safety benefit. The authorities and the SCPs prefer not to acknowledge that automatic speed enforcement may have negative side effects. This issue is being ignored and no research is targeted at establishing the wider effects. Ask yourself this question - what if the net effect of current policy is to result in more deaths on the roads, not fewer? We simply do not know right now. How about this question - why is the fatality trend stalling nationwide whilst SCPs are claiming fantastic success at their sites?

I heard on the radio this morning that in a survey by Autoglass, 2.9million motorists claim they had an accident whilst trying to make up for lost time. 8 million claim they had a near-miss for the same reason. The radio presenter said that the survey was in the context of speed humps and other 'traffic calming' measures. Yes this is just a survey and in itself it may not prove much but it clearly illustrates the possibility of negative consequences of well-intentioned measures. The crux of it is whether there is a net positive benefit in any such measure.

I agree that the answer to the question of 'speed as accident causation factor' is not in itself very revealing. It is conceivable that a small percentage of accidents that are high impact result in a disproportionately large number of fatalities. A much better question would be that of 'speed as fatality causation factor'.

arthurdent

_________________
DO NOT PANIC

Tell you what, we could post that cut-off point on signs at the edge of teh road that give an indication of what it is.

<Steps backs and awaints the hairdryer>

Jolls Now that is best idea you have come up with yet!



Ooh! You healthy livin' musesli munching, veggie burger guzzler - you!

Keep getting overtaken by cyclists with scant regard for 20mph zones up here! Jag overtaken by push bike!

Surreal!

Ahh! So that's what those lollipops are for!

But .. they should let us know whether it they offer us 10%, 10% +2 or whatever - and whatever this is - it should never deviate ever - as it does appear to at present!

Isn't it perhaps inherently risky to try to quantify discretion?

Obviously in many situations I believe that trafpols could and would exercise more discretion than Gatsos, and that prosecutions for 31 in a 30 or whatever are inherently counter-productive but IMV it was unfortunate that the ACPO guidelines ever became public.

I have heard more than one person (including an ex-copper on uk.rec.driving) say that they drive "within the prosecutable margin" which in its way is just as inadequate an approach as driving strictly within the posted limit.

_________________
"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, cameras are causing us to slow down, yet more people are being ticketed and fatal accidents are up. If cameras slow people down and reduce accidents, would you care to explain the 200+ sites identified by the DfT where accidents failed to decrease, not to mention the hundred of other sites where the accident rate hadn't changed, yet they decided that didn't count because the cameras hadn't been there long enough? Think about that - they've already decided what result they're going to have before they have the evidence, and if the evidence doesn't fit they simply discard it. Do you suppose similarly aged camera sites with reductions in accidents were treated equally? Why didn't the DfT sit down and think "hang on, if that set of cameras has had no effect at all, maybe the positive effect at the other sites is happening despite the cameras rather than because of them?". Ah, doesn't fit their speed kills dogma does it.

They haven't stimulated debate, they've created a raft of non-jobs, false statistics, conflicts of interest and smear campaigns, administered by people who simply REFUSE to hear any criticism whatsoever and resort of emotional blackmail when they can see their argument doesn't hold water.
"We've had cameras for ten years...fatalities are up...we need more cameras". Doesn't fill me with confidence I can tell you...

I'd say seat belts, air bags and ABS were all far more important in terms of road safety debate Remember the "clunk click, every trip" adverts? They worked because they had a basis in fact. The camera message isn't working because a) people are getting done by them in ever increasing numbers and b) most motorists will routinely break speed limits without incident. Totalitarian speed enforcement is getting us nowhere - Joe Public sees speed cameras all over the place, yet no real police out there catching the drunk, stolen, untaxed, uninsured and so on. The perception is that the police aren't bothered by these type of people any more as they're too hard to catch. Had your house/car broken into? "Sorry Sir, not much we can do. Here's a crime number for the insurance". Done 35mph in a 30 at 2am? Wallop. Fine and points. You're instantly a child murdering speedophile. What sort of message does that send out? We know the police are victims of political circumstance, but if Mr Average Motorist only ever sees a copper when he's behind a laser gun what is he supposed to think?

Too many people withing the SCPs have a vested interest in the whole operation not being seen to fail.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there is more than one cyclist out there who is fed up with selfish Mr Toads who think driving quickly is much more important than driving safely or legally.

Well, if you're going to wear lycra you have to keep yourself in shape...
( I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you weren't having another sly dig at my sexuality. )

You say "scant regard", Paul would say they don't "rigidly adhere" to speed limits, and that they're much safer for it. ( Or does his logic only apply to cars ? )

Jolls!!!!

What about that militant bunch of muesli munchers (sorry - but I like this catchy bit of alliteration - and you pedal pushers are epitome of health! )

I ride a bike sometimes. I like cars to be in front of me rather than driving behind me slowly. I find it unnerving when being "tailgated" by slow driver! That to me is dangerous driving on part of motorist when I on the push bike!

When I am driving, I bear this in mind and pass at safe speed (so that there is no wobble caused in my slipstream, and I give good space too!) My wife and all other members of this family - right down to our newest young drivers at age 17 behave this way!

However, I cannot deny there are numpties who need educating - hence the call for decent driver information adverts in prime time TV, those periodic assessments/improvement means we have discussed on the forums here.

But you also cannot deny that there is a significant batch of cyclists who flout the law repeatedly. I am amazed at how many cycle above 20mph through the 20mph zones in and around our villages and ramblers anon patches!

You cannot deny there is a bunch of cyclists who pedal fast and furiously on pavements, through shopping malls, down dual carriageways the wrong way down the overtaking lanes, balatantly ignorant of red lights, pelican and puffin crossing rules!

You cannot deny that many ride dodgy bikes and wear inappropriate clothing either!

You cannot deny that some have death wish!

In fact - you cannot deny that the number of numpty cyclists far exceeds the number of numpty drivers! (Course - I am just as competent on bikes as in cars! )

Must dash - family jetting off on jollies this week and some are off next week! Gotta get I-G and couple of others to airport and tootle down after the wife!

Oooh! You do have a bit of hang-up!

Sorry! No- not having a sly dig at all! Agree you have to keep in shape for lycra!

You would be amazed at my normal attire for work! Lurgies means protective clothing and most of it is "tight figure hugging fitting"




You say "scant regard", Paul would say they don't "rigidly adhere" to speed limits, and that they're much safer for it. ( Or does his logic only apply to cars ? )[/quote]

Well - as you said - cyclists do not get done for speeding - so they do not have to rigidly adhere to the speed limit -- so cyclists do have and do pay scant regard to speed limits - particularly in ourr 5mph speed limited car park - where one tried to mow me down the other day! !

C-ya! Gotta go - else someone will miss a plane - and I do not want to get done for speeding on way to MIA! Gotta to go down M6 through Shap, then LanCASH£re, and then the M60 (where take life in hands literally), after that - off to M62 to North Sea Ferry port where I join WildCat (and pals) who gets is typical puss cat on ferry - she gets sea sick!

Then we get to drive through Holland (and brave their scams!) before we reach nice thoughtful German where we can have a blat down the A-bahn and Wildy Cat can scare me to death!

Jolly Roger - care to comment / answer the question?

Returning to the original question, perhaps support for speed cameras doesn't stem from the question of road safety at all.

Perhaps it boils down to the plain black vs white standpoint that the speed limit is, under the law, the maximum speed at which you are permitted to drive...period. And speed cameras catch people breaking the law, so they jolly well deserve it, tough luck!

"But it isn't always in the public interest to prosecute under the law for each and every speeding offence."

Isn't it? Lets be generous and assume that cameras are not for raising revenue, but are instead being used to educate the public into changing their driving style and to slow down to, or below, the speed limit everywhere they drive. When you are threatening a child with a punishment for bad behaviour you lose credibility and authority of you fail to follow it through. So perhaps the same is being applied here. By punishing each and every speeding offence observed, the idea is to retrain the naughty drivers into slowing down.

Supporters of 'the law is the law' stance are either non drivers or falsely assume that they NEVER break the speed limit and will never be caught. Well pah.

That, of course is one of the scamerati's best arguments. The twin problems are that:

a) drivers are not slowing down (except at camera sites)

b) If drivers did give up their own speed choice, the roads would undoubtedly become far more dangerous.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/why.html

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

You haven't defined driving within the spirit of the law, either. I'm guessing that its means "driving at whatever speed I like, and bugger the consequences". As for evidence, there's this: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm

Bugger the consequences isn't exactly what I would call within the spirit of law. It actually means driving at a speed suitable for conditions such as hazard density, junctions, width of road, number of pedestrians around, road surface, traffic density etc etc. It also means driving with care and courtesy to other road users. It means generally being lawful. It does not mean adherence to speed limits in the way that Peter defined.

Good report, after a "speed read" (potentially deadly I know ) I understand it recommends 85%ile speed surveys for speed limit setting. Gosh!

a) Correct of course. Perhaps this is because the whole issue has been one almighty mess with no extant policy or identifiable philosophy. After all, somewhere along the line somebody, perhaps when backed into a corner, was forced to assert that the cameras are there to slow drivers down at sites where there have previously been numersous accidents. That of course left the door, not only ajar but blew its hinges off, for the argument that the cameras should be brightly coloured (or whatever) so drivers could see them and slow down. So they slow down where they see a camera and not everywhere else. Well duhhhh <slaps forehead>

b) Again, a black vs white argument. I.e Drivers should not give up their speed choice, vs They can drive quite safely within the speed limit if they so choose.
I wonder, and I'm just thinking aloud here, when a driver is doing, say, 38mph in a 30mph limit, how much his speed 'choice' is influenced by the fact that he/she knows there is a limit in force. How fast would they go if there were no limit?
To beg the question to its ultimate conclusion, if we were to remove ALL speed limits tomorrow and then, in 3 months time, re-establish them at a new level based on the application of the 85th percentile, how many would actually be set lower than they currently are? And how many would be dangerously too high? I dunno, guess we'll never find out.

Well, if you set them at the 85th percentile then lots of research shows they would not be in any way dangerous at all.

Let's turn this around for a moment. Why, would you say, that 70mph on a motorway is safe limit, and not, say, 60 or 80?

70mph is a limit that has been reached by consensus among stakeholders. 70mph is not safe in the sense that nothing can happen to you at that speed. Things may happen to you at 60, but they may not be as likely, nor hurt as much when they do. Likewise, things may happen to you at 80, but they are more likely to happen, and hurt more, than if you were doing 70.

Moreover, at higher speeds, you are more likely to involve other road users. That is why the consensus of opinion has to be considered. If speeders only hurt themselves, I would be quite happy for them to go very fast.

_________________
I stole this .sig

What consensus? FWIW the 70mph limit was introduced during the 1960s (NOT by Barbara Castle, although she did make it permanent) as an overreaction by the government to boy racers on the sparsely-populated M1. It's sheer inertia that has prevented it from changing, rather than any serious examination of the issue.


This "less likely" and "more likely" assertion is, to put it politely, unproven. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that at higher speeds drivers pay better attention than at lower speeds - an instinctive adjustment of the risk factors surrounding you seems to take place, though there are others who can describe it better than I. As to how much it hurts at 60 as opposed to 80, I venture to suggest that the difference would be negligible.

_________________
Keep right on to the end of the road ...