Safe Speed Forums

Its a limit. Not the safe speed at which to drive.

Indeed, you're quite right that 30 would most likely be too fast. So why are people complaining about the hidden camera? Its only catching people who are going to fast - surely thats a good thing?



You need to be looking further ahead than "a few seconds" on the fast roads, which are generally the only roads with alignments suitable for enforcement from a significant distance.

...who know how much about road safety?




I did say what the accident record was. the road is straight and wide - it used to be a three-lane road until about 10 years back. It's the A38, BTW.



I know. I've lived near there for years and travel that road every day - and all accidents are reported in the local press, even minor ones.



Once again...



Most definitely.



Emphatically not.



Nothing like that at all.



The accident problem was solved before the signals were put in place.



The lights are easily visible from at least a half a mile.



Nonsense.




FFS, I've lived within spitting distance of it for years.



The drunk just stumbled into the road. The woman who hit him said she didn't even see him - and, according to the police, her speed was 25-30mph.



Read my lips - there was no accident problem.



The traffic now bunches up. Work it out for yourself.



When it's a long layby, separated from the carriageway, and the exit is clearly visible - and still a quarter mile away, what potential hazards are there?



'Suggests'. A lot of the time the traffic much closer to you is far more of a concern. At 70mph it takes you nearly half a minute to cover that distance - and you can stop within around four seconds. (or the distance you cover in two seconds at that speed)



No I haven't, but you seem to keep on missing mine.



How, precisely?

BTW it's late, and I'm now going to bed.

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

Not necessarily anything. Such is democracy.

What makes you think you know any more?



But you're (presumably) not privvy to all the accident records.



The type of road where people assume high speed is safe?



So anywhere between Mansfield and Bodmin.

so that narrows it down then....



Are you privvy to the accident records on that stretch of road?



Again, are you privvy to the accident records?



Are you privvy to the accident records?



Are you privvy to the accident records?



How would you know? Discussed it with the signal engineers respsonsible, have you?



And you've seen the accident records to confirm this?



What about intervisibility? Or radii? Or lane widths? Or compliance with signals? Or detection? Or capacity-restricting intergreens?



And you know this how?




And?



So you keep asserting - but you have provided nothing to back this up beyond they fact you live there and read the paper occasionally.

If you actually know, you'll be able to give numbers for slight, serious and fatal accidents along the road for the 3 years before the alterations and the (up to) 3 years since.



Why would the lower speed limit cause traffic to bunch up? Surely traffic would run smoother, rather than running stop start as happens when people try to accelerate up to higher speeds in heavy traffic?



Er, the van might pull out.



If you're leaving it to a few seconds because you can stop in around 4 seconds, then sooner or later you'll make a mistake, and you'll have no margin to deal with that.

Its also alot easier to look ahead and deal with hazards early. If there are so many hazards around you that this isn't possible, then perhaps breaking the speed limit isn't such a good idea.




You seem to have decided the changes are a bad thing, yet you show no understanding or knowledge of the circumstances in which they were implemented. The best supporting evidence for your statements that you've provided is that you read the local rag. That doesn't cut it.

Is ndp b'erk in disguise?

I couldn't say, I gave up reading when I realised how long the posts were.

It's a good thing then that heart surgeons don't operate on the same principles as (you say) traffic engineers do.



I followed the developments closely, to the extent of going to public meetings. Very few local residents or businesses were in favour. There were numerous written objections to the proposals, including from the police, but they went ahead anyway.



Four serious injury accidents in the three years leading up and six PIAs - all of them on dark winter mornings, and all of them at the junction. And all caused by people pulling out of the junction in the face of oncoming traffic. None in the year since.



That's the theory, but it doesn't quite work like that in practice. Try observing for yourself what happens on the roads.



A half a mile ahead? What difference will that make?



You're missing the point. You don't leave hazards until the last possible moment, but you concentrate on hazards and potential ones which are closer to you first, before you consider those far ahead.
You take note of what's happening far ahead in order to plan your moves, but they don't require any detailed thought process until you're a lot closer

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

The example was given purely to illustrate the point that some Gatsos are still concealed. I wasn't commenting on the appropriateness of the limit. As it happens, the photo somewhat foreshortens the scene, exaggerating the lack of visibility, and the limit is in my view a bit marginal between a 30 and a 40.

And if the location really is that dangerous, then surely a highly visible camera would be far more effective in slowing traffic down than a hidden one.

_________________
"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

But it is very relevant. You have made the assertion that both fixed and mobile cameras are so clearly visible that it would take a serious failure of observation to miss one. I have stated that in my experience this is simply not true, and many fixed cameras and most mobile ones are not particularly obvious. While I make no claims to perfection, I would respectfully suggest that with far more driving experience than yourself, and possessing a higher-level driving qualification, I know what I'm talking about.


Should the authorities really be installing hard-to-spot hazards, then? And if you believe that cameras should be highly visible, and there is clear evidence that, in practice, many are not, surely you should support measures to make them more visible. Or do you really believe that sneaky hidden traps are the way to go?

You should also know, as a trainee traffic engineer, that if a high proportion of drivers fail to spot or understand a sign, the reason is not that the drivers are stupid, but that the sign isn't sufficiently clear.

_________________
"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

Obviously some do. I wish they would develop the skills and experience to drive to the conditions.



The law must fit in with safe practice, not the other way around. At present the fit is very poor and it's the law (and its enforcement) that's WAY out of line.

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

Ummmm possibly because they use that road every day? Possibly because the road was once a 60mph (safely so)? Possibly because they know it is now pure revenue generation?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

And I agree, it should be expected - when it is sensible limit.

And if drivers cannot work out for themselves what a safe speed is for any given stretch of road in any conditions, then perhaps they need further education. And cashcams aren't going to do that. But TrafPol can.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

ndp wrote.

a

says me, not adding anything much either..

To throw your analogy back at you, you wouldn't claim to be able to do a heart surgeon's job on the basis of what you've read in the paper and how you percieve the state of your health - so why do you think you can do a traffic engineer's job on the basis of your perception and what you read in the paper?



And?



Resolving formal objections is not the responsibility of engineers, but that of the people's elected representatives.



10 injury accidents and 4 serious injury accidents in 3 years at one junction is an accident problem.



So that will explain the signals (which drivers approach with more caution, and allow for protected (and thus safer) right turns) and the lower speed limit (which makes right turning easier and safer during any permissive right turn stage and counters drivers tendancy to underestimate the speed of oncoming traffic)



So far so good.



Then how does it happen?



Well, there is a good chance you'll need to (or wish to) alter course or speed to deal with the van. You need to be checking mirrors, blind spots, and so on, so you can assess your situation.

And even if it doesn't, you still need to be aware of it so you can check it still hasn't pulled out

You don't dismiss hazards simply because no action is apparantly required at a given time.



Indeed - but if you've got that many hazards close by, shouldn't you be slowing down?



I disagree. If you think about the ball bouncing into the road some distance ahead, you can deal with it. If you leave it until you're on top of it, you hit the child that was following the ball. If you think about the ball early, it may provide you with the time to infer and anticipate the potential child, thus avoiding an accident if the child does indeed follow.

And my point is neither are alot of hazards. Drivers cannot expect all hazards to be clearly marked - its simply impossible to achieve this.



I would suggest that suggesting a higher-level driving qualification as a reason to claim one knows how traffic engineering should be approached is akin to suggesting that a certified lunatic should be running the asylum.



Ah, nothing like a loaded question.

The authorities should not be making hazards visible to the point that drivers start expecting hazards visible

The purpose of warning signs is to "indicate a need for special caution by road users and may require a reduction in speed or some other manoeuvre." (Quote from TSM Ch5, my emphasis).

Speed cameras don't require special caution - you should be obeying the limit anyway.



Where a camera has been installed to slow traffic down at an accident site, then it makes sense for the camera to be visible.

However....



I think there needs to be a limited amount of covert enforcement to ensure limits are abided by not just where enforcement is apparant, but at all times.



Wrong.



I'm not sure what that has to do with my point.

And you're missing the point. The fact remains that an awful lot of people pass cameras which are highly visible in limits which are clear. Surely you'll admit that that these people are failing, and that this proves my point that alot of drivers are failing when it comes to driving at a safe speed where they can deal with the (potential) hazards presented?

Is it really helpful to stoop to the level for the lowest common denominator like this? Or to have a system where enforcement practise effectively results in one rule for some, one for others?



Well that doesn't answer the question.

AIUI, you're essentially saying that the 70 limit should only apply (in practice) to the under-experienced and underskilled. Everyone else should be let off on the discretion of a police officer eg treated as if the limit didn't exist, and that only a reasonable-and-prident speed law existed.

Then why have the 70 limit for all?

Indeed, the limits need to be set appropriately.



But they simply can't do that in all conditions. You can't see everything from the drivers POV. If you could, limits could simply be set by driving along the road and making a decisions. I don't think many would advocate such an approach.



But speed cameras are supposed to educate. They're supposed to penalise and discourage driving above the speed limit so as to deal with the circumstances where education cannot or is not ensuring drivers drive at an appropriate speed.

Its not for the sake of it - the questions are important. How can one evaluate the measures under discussion without knowing the facts?

Should traffic engineers base their decisions on the say so of one person on the internet? I don't think so.

It is far from impossible to ensure that all speed traps are clearly marked, though. You claimed they were - my view is that you are quite wrong to make such an assertion.


This is nothing to do with the finer points of traffic engineering, it is a simple question of the visibility of speed traps.


Actually I would doubt whether nowadays "an awful lot of people" are being caught by highly visible cameras in limits that are clear. People have become increasingly aware of cameras.

But bear in mind that the Highway Code contains no guide to speed camera spotting, and people who don't follow groups like this and don't take much interest in the media may not find them at all obvious, especially the less blatant ones like SPECS. The same applies with knobs on to Talivans. I bet the first many people heard of a Talivan was when they got a nasty brown envelope through the door.

_________________
"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

Yes, but if you have to scroll through five computer screens to read a post with 15 items of interleaved reply, many people will lose the will to live

_________________
"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 made no such claim. I merely stated "if drivers can't cope with marked and signed cameras and camera vans, how are they going to cope with subtler hazards?". I did not say all such cameras were clearly signed.



The ones which are marked with warning signs?



Again, these are usually marked with warning signs.

And see the post about what I actually said.

With that post and comments like "trainee traffic engineer" you have gone some way to prove why we need limits and why we need enforcement. You've got a small amount of knowledge of the circumstances, interpreted it (occasionally incorrectly), then assumed you have *all* the information. And you're wrong , of course. And you'll do the same when you're driving. As do I, as does everyone else. Why? Its simple human nature, human fallability.

*That's* why we need speed limits - to ensure drivers react to the full picture - not just the bit they can see. And no doubt they'll think the limits are too low or are set in a conspiracy against motorists or, and will think they know it all, or whatever, when they can only see from their viewpoint. And thats why we need enforcement - to ensure they comply with the limit regardless of their opinion which is only based on partial information.