Safe Speed Forums

You can't - and no proper control trials have ever taken place.

However it is clear that, taken overall, the road safety performance of police force areas with lots of cameras is no better than those with few or none - which suggests that cameras are far from the panacea that is often claimed.

_________________
"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

Clearly speed cameras aren't a panacea - but then what is?

Because it is being used to suggest that the 30 mph limit is far too low, even though a man standing at a pedestrian crossing took it. Would you let your children walk to school over pedestrian crossings on 70 mph roads, where most of the cars are doing 85mph?

_________________
I stole this .sig

But thats the point of the pedestrian crossing - to provide a facility to cross where drivers are restricted to 0mph were necessary. If people are failing to observe the red signal (be it through travelling at excessive speed or whatever), then surely a red light camera would be far more appropriate (if, of course, there is actually a problem)?

The route to school reference is simply emotive "think of the childerrun". All (non-motorway) roads are potentially routes to school, and are roads on which children may well be - so using your argument, all roads should have a 30mph limit. Clearly thats nonsense.

If the crossing is near a school, and forms part of a route to that school, then the 30 limit might (and only might) be justified. But if its there simply for its own sake, or because "it seems like a good idea", as opposed to actually solving a problem, all it will serve to do it devalue the speed limit as a road safety tool. Its like seeing "SLOW" painted on the road - its overused to the point it has lost its meaning and effect.

Furthermore, drivers should reasonably expect signals when a sign warning of signals is provided - and even if it isn't, they should be driving at a speed at which they can stop in the distance they can see to be clear. If they are doing this, neither the signals, nor anyone crossing the road, should pose a problem for the driver (and thus the driver won't pose a problem to crossing pedestrians or whoever). If they are not, then something is wrong. Either the nature of the road is deceptive (in which case aluminium, thermoplastic and TROs should be considered to resolve this (be that be the placement of advance warning signs, introduction of speed limits, enforcement or whatever)) - and/or drivers are simply failing in their respsonsibilities through negligence or incompetance. In the latter case, providing measures to tell drivers what they are expected to work out for themselves (by introducing warning signs, speed limits or whatever) may solve the problem locally - but it comes at the cost that people start to expect to be told, and start to assume that the lack of a warning sign or speed limit indicates the lack of a hazard. The result is people will crash where you haven't told them - you simply shift the symptoms of crap driving, rather than dealing with the problem.

To put it in your terms, would you let your children inherit a road system where speed limits (and traffic control measures generally) have become overused to the point that they have little effect?

Put 30mph limits in where they aren't warranted and people will have no respect for 30mph limits. They won't discriminate between the warranted limits and the excessive ones.

Now when this road was planned , looking at the photo it would seem not too old - makes me wonder if there was a possibility of this being a road obstructing pedestrian access to somewhere like a school , why was a footbridge not included at the planning stage , or again was this crossing an afterthought like a lot of others, cost being a prime consideration, not road safety.With forward planning, the access ramps could have been made user friendly for e.g. prams .

_________________
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

That makes sense.

If only they'd listen and get back into the real world of road safety.

Grade separated pedestrian crossings have to be attractive if pedestrians are to use them - and this means moving the road for the footpath, rather than moving the footpath for the road (eg by building a footbridge). This is rather expensive, and may not be justifiable in the circumstances.

Pedestrians simply won't use footbridges or subways where they have to climb significant number of steps, or follow a maze of convoluted shallow ramps. They'd chance it by crossing at grade. The result is that alot of the time a signalised crossing is a best option.

When the road was built (in 1996) it was NSL through the roundabout, and there were no pedestrian crossings. This made it virtually impossible to cross the road safely at pretty much any time between 7 am and 9 pm. The pedestrian crossings and 30 limit were implemented a couple of years later as a distinctly heavy-handed way of dealing with the problem.

NDP is right in saying that pedestrian footbridges have largely been abandoned because pedestrians quite simply did not use them. And it is much less effort to go up and down 20 feet in a motor vehicle than on foot. They are also, however designed, very unfriendly to the disabled.

_________________
"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

Was just a thought - thats answered the question - just seemed a bit more logical to separate bodies and cars - we have one locally - long ramps on both sides - see prams etc using it in preference to crossing at neck of roundabout --suspect put in at road construction to enable safe access for school route.

_________________
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

Different people have different views about different levels of Govt intervention for different issues here. I hope you won't homogenise posters here too much. My opinion is that the Govt should intervene when they can do more good than harm. But complex problems aren't always solved with simple interventions even if they are 'cost neutral' and 'harm' needs to be honestly & openly taken account of, not spun away.

Panic braking for cameras is gross incompetence? Its certainly dangerous and in theory unnecessary.

But people do sometimes drift over the limit. They just do. For various reasons, reasonable and unreasonable. (Try driving into Swansea from the M4 for the first time, downhill stretches, numerous lane changes needed, busy traffic, with several 30-40 limit changes but bristling with cameras.)

Not all cameras are always particularly visible, particularly mobile enforcement.

Jobs>mortgages>marriages etc are at risk if driving licences are lost.

Cameras are punitive and threaten the individual (see above) so people react as individuals when the threat is...acute, ie selfishly with scant regard to others' safety.

So if you put a camera in place, haven't thought about panic braking (or don't care) and have rejected other (safer) ways of doing the job (cost?), bearing in mind that selfish (if inappropriate) driver behaviour is to some extent inevitable are you truly blameless?

_________________
"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

Have you’ve been conned by the picture, npd? The picture is designed to suggest that this stretch has no hazards (although you know now that it does) – so have you fallen for it? Think!

Do you think it is OK here for >30? Well there you are - they HAVE got you arguing for it with all your might. Of course – that’s why they use this picture – it cons people like you! Pfhhh!

_________________
I stole this .sig

No one is ever truly blameless. However, if a driver panic brakes for a camera and has an accident relating to this, then the bulk of responsibility lies on them.

It is important to consider the impact that panic braking may have in assessing these things - nevertheless, the fact it happens sometimes does not necessarily make cameras a bad thing.

No, and I haven't been conned by you either.



On what basis do you suggest that? I'd suggest there isn't any beyond the circumstantial evidence that it would suit the arguments of some here - but then that cuts both ways.



I knew that without seeing the photo. Any road has hazards.



Nope



Depends on the circumstances. When its good conditions? When the lights are at red? When its icy? When its heavily trafficed? At night? At day? With the car fully loaded? Or empty? Whats outside the margins of the photo? What have I seen before I got to the point where the photo was taken?

Simply presenting a static picture and saying "what speed do you think is appropriate" is pointless. It depends on a vast number of factors - and you haven't started to provide any of them.

The appropriate speed can change so dramatically with conditions that the driver simply has to assess the appropriate speed at the time. The onus is on them to work it out. It may well be the case that speeds of 30 or less are appropriate - and that will certainly be true in some circumstances - but its the job of the driver to work that out.

Using speed limits simply to tell drivers at what speed they should drive is unsustainable. If you tell them the appropriate speed for a given stretch of road, then they will come to expect to be told it everywhere (and will drive too fast where they aren't being told to slow). Given the hugely variable nature of the appropriate speed, to achieve this is impossible - and so the responsibility to choose an appropriate speed lies with the driver.

Speed limits are there as one means of setting a ceiling (and nothing more) when competant drivers cannot be expected to determine what the safe speed is (eg due to a road of a decpetive nature), or to limit the consequences where there is a relatively high likelyhood of an accident occuring (eg due to extenuating circumstances beyond the drivers control).

I would suggest that neither of these circumstances would be shown up by a photograph from the road, due to their very nature.

It is important to note that just because the maximum safe speed for a road may be xx mph, it does not follow that the speed limit for such a road may be xx mph.



"They"? So its us and them?

Maybe you're right - but you're with "them" along with Paul and others - you just don't realise it yet.

Aguing for "it"? What is "it"? You seem to be under the idea that I was arguing that 30+ was a safe speed - I was merely arguing that the 30mph limit appeared to be innappropriate in the circumstances. Thats a very different thing.



Did you read my post? You seem to have neglected to comment on any of the points it raised (even the one you quoted).

Well that's something I can build on with you, maybe.



You haven't a clue what you are talking about, unfortunately. But I'll explain it all for you (again!) Now listen up this time - the photographer took several shots and choose this one for these “spin doctor” purposes, because it doesn't show the pedestrian crossing.

It's not neglect – I can't be bothered with your drivel! You are asking too much, npd - I'm not interested in your points - it's Friday night! But as you seem to have forgotten, I'll remind you - you were asking me about my point. Thanks for your interest in my views. I'm sure you are a very nice person despite initial impressions.

_________________
I stole this .sig

What precisely is the point of this? Is a substitute for an argument?



Oh?



So you assert, yet you have no proof. Nil. Zilch. You don't even know the photographer choose which picture was to be used on that page.



You seem to be in violent agreement with me on that. You seem sane enough but I can't understand why you object so venomously when I explain one of the factors that you are not aware of which is just out of the frame?[/quote]

I was aware of it, as I had seen the picture before at http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/gallery_speedreduc.html, where the presence of a pedestrian crossing is clearly stated.

My point was that the presence of a pedestrian crossing (or indeed any individual hazard) does not, in itself, warrant a 30mph (or indeed any) local speed limit.



No its all in the Traffic Signs Manual and various DfT roads circulars.

If you read it you know it that paragraph was not about the role of driver responsibility, but that it was in fact about the role of trafic engineers (etc) in ensuring TROs, aluminium and thermoplasic sparingly and with caution to ensure that the burden of responsibility remains firmly on the shoulders of road users, and that they know it.



That the role of speed limits is limited.



Oh is that right. Kindly justify your comments, and on what authority you make those comments.



I don't pretend there is.



Don't like what I have to say?



Well quite frankly the nuts and bolts of traffic engineering are rather dull. It'd be nice if people realised this a quit the flamboyant grandstanding.

Sorry if that spoils yuor fun.



. ---WHOOSH!---->
o



Then why both to reply at all?



Then whats the point of you being here?



I was - however, I then commented on the (weak) explanation you provided for your point.

I am intrigued why you feel the need for the insults, the hostility, the demands I "get out of the way", the patronising tone, the childish mispelling of my username. Is it really necessary? Can't you meet me half way when it comes to making interesting, constructive posts? Can't you make your point calmly and rationaly?

Slow down, ndp! You're right - there is no need to be hostile tonight. Have you had a beer yet?





The bloke who took several pictures that day knows I'm right about the shots. You may not like the inferences I have drawn, but this isn't a court, it's a discussion forum. I have an inflated sense of my own worth. If I suspect spin doctoring, that's that, and I couldn't give a hoot – I was rather hoping someone would make a denial, but we've spoiled that chance.



So we already have proof of the crossing. And odd that the crossing is clearly stated there and not here, eh? And even funnier that we both knew about it, of all the roads in England. Kismet, ndp!



Good – then you'll enjoy speaking to the others who hang out here, who care about that type of thing. But I'm on about spin doctoring.



And on that we can agree (violently agree if you please) but it is of no relevance to spin doctoring so let's forget that for now.



I have the define right of the prophet Madoc, and I speak with the full authority of the late Pope! Honest!



Yeah, I love it all. It's great to be on a role. You sound fiery, knowledgeable, argumentative, independent, geeky and slightly obsessive; a great, crazy mix!



No shit. Look, between you and me (the others are looking away) I'm just probing the “powers that be” with this 'spin doctoring' malarkey. I know the picture is complicated.



Now even the late Pope could tell me that. All I can say is that I suspect that this site is run by and on behalf of libertarian influences who are hiding motives beneath a banner of safety, and it is my duty to try to unveil them. They are clever, and I am running the risk of being barred by telling you that. If I disappear, you will know where I am gone. Actually, I could be wrong, but have you noticed there is something funny about the people here – for example, I get the feeling they read the Daily Mail, and watch Top Gear. I have no proof. Draw what you will from that.



The “name thing” is one of my old many tricks to loosen people up. I had to try to test you, after you came on so strong in the first place. I was trying to entice the webmaster out. You gave me a good beating in return. I hope you stick around despite me. Have a nice weekend.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Come on basingwerk, libertarians are going to ban you for telling people that you think they are libertarians? As an attempt at a slur that's a pretty poor effort. D-

_________________
Less Kodak, more Kojak.
In times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Basingwerk, you are unique!

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

I thought you were looking the other way

_________________
I stole this .sig

You should be barred for casting aspersions like that.