Safe Speed Forums

Absolutely, and indeed it is important to pay attention to guidance from advanced driving organisations offered, such as the (introductory) guidance like that from RoSPA to which I posted a link.

But there is an important difference between advanced drivers and advanced driving bodies offering advice and guidance and those going on a bit of a "I have an advanced driving qualification, and therefore I know best" attitude.

There is clearly a crossover - one cannot be expected to be qualified to an advanced level in the operation of every vehicle that can legally use the public highway (and also where the public highway conflicts which other modes of transport such as railway level crossings, moving bridges and even airfields) and as such advice needs to be sought. And indeed, the more responsible bodies like RoSPA, the FTA, the CTC and so on publish guidelines and advice for traffic engineers for this very reason.

Don't worry, the advice of advanced driving groups is welcome and respected. But being an advanced driver is no reason to be as eager to criticise as some here are.

EDIT:
As an aside, what whose advice do "SafeSpeeders" think should be followed where there is a conflict between the two - RoSPA's or SafeSpeed's?

We have one of the lowest sccident and KSI rate in the UK - and we do ti with policemen - deployed as policemen. We only use qulaified staff to enforce and professionally judge the driving standards around here - and nothing is 100% as people are - well people - but we appear to have less serious incidents than elsewhere - and we are the same urban/rural mix as anywhere else.



The point is that everything in life involves a risk assessment - and most of the time we judge correctly. You could just as easily ban alpine sports and ball sports because there people run the risk of a foul of a broken limb in a dodgy tackle. I think the BBC comment on the downhill slalom was spot on - get it right and you win gold - get it wrong and you could lose your life.

Fact is we take risks Humans always have done - risked sassing the teacher, sassing the parents, stretching the bouindaries to get that little more lee-way here and there - and most of the amenities we enjoy today was due to a risky investement by an entrepreneur or some scientific boffin wondering what would happen if.....

In short - risk is all everday routine life.


Since much of the nanny state comes from the EU - I have not noted them whining over the 9 year old being done for jay-walking.

Nanny state is just a disguiese for a blatantly dictatorial Old Labour sect rto force their ideals on folk by feigning concern and taking responsiblity for self away from people whilst at the same time making it a crime of thinking for oneself.

(Ha - should have gone into politice - that last bit sounds like something from "Yes Prime Minister" )



Swiss, Germans and even the French do not always assume! Never really found that much fault with their driving overall. Just as good as here - even if the French are a bit funny over red lights in the South

But basically any accident at the crossing and they do not automatically beat the driver over the head. They check what part the ped played and this is only right and fair. Think Mad Doc posted a case in which the driver escaped a dangerous charge because the teenager he killed had consumed two bottles of vodka when she staggered into his path. Sure - he was twice the legal speed limit - but the court took the view that the accident and outcome would have been the same had he not been speeding and dropped the dangerous charge and he ended up with a short ban for the speeding and a large fine and costs - but no jail term.

You may say this was the wrong decision. CPS act on the evidence we supply to them in any case - and in this case GMP (in this case) and CPS could only prove he was driving bove the speed limit and the drunken state of the girl late at night was also taken into account.



Aye - not a lot you can do if the person is drunk or drugged as in the above case - and they certainly do not repsect a uniform (and in my youth as trainees - had more vomit spewed over me than a nursing mother, nurse or doctor.... You have no idea how hard it is to get dried on gob output off the blue serge....

But disobeying a green man or zebra - Oh! the cash we could raise




Those European countries operate the same "£tolerance"



As I understand - you are a young man. Blitzed out Britain was just as flattened as other parts of Germany. In fact, much of Old GDR was bomb free - with Leipzig and the Baltic Coast taking the brunt - and Dresden? Hitler was a devious chap - there was a good reason why it was hit - let's put it that way.

In any case - we used Marshall aid to set up the Welfare State and NHS. Europe used it to rebuild their cities. We are still paying the interest on that aid by the way.



You have not seenhj the plans - nor those from the other Beacon towns. I would say they are excellent.



Most of them follow the roads -or they do around here



Given we have no real cycling facilities - most of expect to share the roads with the cyclists. But we do share the roads and when on my bike (and I do clock up a fair mileage on my bike) - I am careful to ensure dirvers know my intentions and also careful to ensure that we make firendly eye contact and negotiate. I do the same in my car.

From observing the general public at large - I would even say the majority do likewise. Of the hard core of numpties - we have 10% nationally who really need the booster lessons or a ban - and all bans should include a set of lessons at the conclusion of the ban to help that driver not make such mistakes in future. It would also bring the driver back in line with the ephemeral traffic conditions.



Indeed - but as a result alot of accidents are never recorded.[/quote]

We just do not have the man power to nit pick every incident which is dealt with very effectively by insurance companies - and - if treated "knock for knock" - parties still learn and evaluate as a result of assualt on bank accounts to pay for all this



Well the thing is with roads like the A14 is that pretty much the entire route has hazards like private accesses etc. As a result you need to treat the whole route.[/quote]

The whole road should have been designed better - in fact like Stocksbidge - the motorway which never "made it"

But ... for all that .. would say only "tetchy bit" is joning the damned road from the M1....



If you believe the hype -= but the Mad Cats have tangible evidence of 33/34 mph NIPs in Lancs because of the speed course. Only if you drove past all four of them on tsome roads in Blackpool - you get the Speed Course for one and still end up with 9 points or a ban.... They now have evidence of one such case apparently and are trying to get the bloke to post all on here - or send his stuff to Paul..




Well yes. But people need to have some patience - there are some perfectly valid limits out there which may seem a bit daft from the drivers POV.[/quote]


I think there are a lot - from my spell with GMP [i] years ago - A666 and A6 come to mind. Urban A6 is 40 mph in Manchester suburb - whilst the parallel A666 - very wide road - is a 30 mph in same Manchester suburb. This road was always a good hunting ground even before cams appeared A "dupe" road....

We have some of these around here - road which on the eye look like a 40 mph but aren't. Agree - they should be ...

We allow what we consider to be a very fair margin on such roads

Not saying what it is though!

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

As I understand - you are aged about 22-23.

At age 23 - I was the youngest Hendon "graduate" in my day

I am now -er - well .. um ..... sigh .. just over 50 years YOUNG AND TRENDY!

Have lot of experience as and been involved in the accident investigaton teams.

I thus know more than a thing or two about how accidents occur and no trainee civil engineer is likely to teach me a few new tricks

We doi know that BAD road layout and ENGINEERING plays a BIG part in disaster though

There are a number of TRL reports whioch I suggest you read and learn from

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Out of interest, where is here?



Oh indeed that is correct. Which is why we don't simply ban vehicles.

But nevertheless you still aim to control the risks - hence the netting to stop your skier from plunging to their death.




Its not the EU that would be an issue, more the civil liberties campaigners, pedestrians groups, the environmentalists and so on.

I suspect the Daily Wail and the Grauniad would find common ground on the issue as well.



Isn't that what you're doing by proposing we ban "jaywalking" ?



They only have to do it once, at the wrong moment.



That is of course perfectly fair.



Indeed it is important to recognise the failings of others (eg the speeding driver) no not excuse the failings of oneself (the pedestrian). But that can work both ways.



Well I'm not privvy to all the facts of the case - but as I say the failings of another are not an excuse for the failings of ones self, and this can (and should) cut both ways. So I'll take your word for it in this instance




I haven't - are they online anyway?



Decent cycle facilities? Or the crappy 1.3m cycle lanes that run in the gutter with the drains, deteriorating surface and such? Or the off road paths with the bimblnig pedestrians, broken glass, and giveway lines at every junction if you're lucky, or at every private access if you're not?



Indeed - it is important that everyone remembers that, at the end of the day, cars and bicycles are both vehicles, and thus rights and responsibilities are broadly the same.



I think thats reasonable, after all, all drivers get it right most of the time.

Still, we need enforcement to stop people drifting off the straight and narrow too much



Has to do with excess. Sometimes the repair is less than the excess charge or a marginal difference. Hence the parties will agree to treat knock for knock without filling in forms and drawing diagrams for something which really needs a T-cut job and not much else.

If one or other repair or both are costly - then makes sense to deal vial the insurers. [/quote]

Indeed - but as a result alot of accidents are never recorded.[/quote]

We just do not have the man power to nit pick every incident which is dealt with very effectively by insurance companies - and - if treated "knock for knock" - parties still learn and evaluate as a result of assualt on bank accounts to pay for all this [/quote]

Oh indeed - I'm not saying that the police so go through all the beaurocratic process for even the most minor shunt - clearly that'd be absurd (and would really get the Daily Wail going )

My point was merely that this results in flaws in the statistics which need to be considered when analysing the statistics.



I don't think anyone would really disagree - however its all constraints. When the A14 was built the finances and political will were only there for the current botch. Its was a question of the current situation or nothing at all.

Clearly not an ideal situation



That is not particularily helpful. Prosecuting for 33mph is not something I object to in itself (indeed I think you'd need to occassionally so people don't come to expect tolerance - but then in these cases a policeman having a word may be a better option, with tickets dispensed to those with a bit of an attitude) - but if you end up with a situation where someone gets themselves disqualified before they know about the first offense then not alot has been achieved beyond a bit of a PR mare.



Well as I've said, the fact that a road looks like a 40mph it doesn't mean a 40 limit is appropriate - indeed, it may be the reason for the lower limit.

Ideally of course in such circumstances reengineering the road to a 30mph design speed would be the way forward - but thats expensive (and we need the cash for the M67 ). Which is why we have enforcement (both cameras and police) to encourage people to keep to limits even if the reason isn't apparant.

I can't comment on the specific examples you give, I don't know the roads. But it is important that limits are consistant with the road environment and each other as far as is possible. Limits which are apparantly inconsistant with the road environment are sometimes a necessary evil - however, where the justification doesn't exist they do alot of harm IMV.

Knowing how the accidents occur and knowing[1] how to reduce their occurance/severity are not the same thing

[1]Not that it is a case of knowing - the rare and random nature of road accidents makes it a case of educated guesswork.



It can do - but its not always the case of course.

All options are kept open when an accident cluster arises.

Of course, one option is simply that the accident rate at a site/route is simply to be expected for a given situation with given inflows. In which case you can't realistically hope to reduce accident rates - but you can try and influence how people crash, to reduce the impact.

Of course, road layouts are influenced by many outside pressures, so don't be so eager to blame the engineers .

Goodnessgraciousme

I hear Peter Jackson is making the movie trilogy of this thread.

And for what its worth, its taxpayers generally who pay my wages. And an awful lot of them disagree with you and Safe Speed generally. And they're just as happy to play the "we pay your wages" card as well when myself, colleagues or whoever disagree with them.

Hi there Rigs my mate! Nice to see you :

Am being my normal non PC self

In case you're wondering why those thoroughly Mad Cats aren't in here - - ing it - they're in the US at mo'!

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Why - Durham of course! And North Yorks also has a decent record given its mix of urban and seriously twisty rurals.

Neither police by speed camera - but still manage to prevent carnage all over the place - and both are delighted to report they keep it lower than average and manage to hit targets to get the rates down and maintained as "low"!



You ever been off piste? But un ant case - you lose a ski in a slalom and I believe the breakages are just a bit on the very severe side. (Cousin of mine - Wildy's sister - competed in this sport as youngster.)

But in general - most drivers assess and gauge traffic and speed well enough to negotiate and blend in the flow of traffic. we do this when walking in a crowd or cycling or riding en groupe as well. Humans have this extraordinary brain/eye/hand/body co-ordination skill and as we gain expertise and practice - so it sharpens.





Well - they seem to want id cards and cameras all over the place... Plus these same bodies seem to think drivers are making a "fuss over nothing" when they read tabloid reports of DVLA selling their details to various supposedly interested parties....

Oh - and on Sark I believe bicycles are taxed - so no cyclotopia of free rides and "privacy" that way

But fining jay-walkers - no one complains in the countries (including some USA states) - and why would environmentalists be up in arms about fining hay walkers who saunter and moon walk across roads. I'd be inclined to serve these moon walkers and deliberate dawdlers inthe road with aan ASBO as this loitering is really what it is...



Yep - they were all livid with bashing disgust when the girl got a caution for chucking a snowball at a t car. Only her scoop of snow contained stones and the force with which she threw it broke the window of the car. Fortunately for her - trained cop in an unmarked car and he was able to bring it under control without hitting anyone - including her. Not just "kids being kids" - and chucking snowballs at moving vehicles and bicycles is not that far removed from chucking from a bridge. Apart form that - the shock element of something being thrown can cause a shock which can cause loss of control!

So her fine was justified as was the apple business - and I posted at the time I had tried steering my car in and out of the drive clutching a Granny Smith with a bit out of it ... and found there were indeed problems which more or less justifies the woman getting the ticket and our hammering those clutching mobile phones (Wildy on PH at one point likened this to a kid needing a "moo blanket")



Jay -walking is different. It is a form of anti-social behaviour - if a deliberate act of trying toforce traffic to stop.

Some of the cyclist groups - including the CTC got their lycra lathered up into ball of foam when my colleagues down in the Met decided to clamp down on CM.

It is not "just a little bike ride amongst pals" This is an organised mass which involves hundreds and as such it involves the public. We have no problem with "protest marches and bike rides" so long as we have a warning and a planned route so that we can ensure peaceful progress without contravening Health and Safety issues and without disrupting the lives of other people who have a right to travel on their way without these people deliberately holding them up at a Friday rush hour. In short - we are clamping down on this unplanned and disorganised business because of safety matters and need to keep things flowing instead of something causing unnecessary gridlock which we cannot ease or redirect without being advised of the route.

Not "Nanny State of kill joying" - but sheer matter of "policing properly - serving and protecting all concerned!"



Of course it - and we also play fair when dealing with incidents involving cyclists - and we do know what the the "cyclists who have never heard of Cycle Craft of Highway Code or any internet site" do at red lights and one ways....



Lot of drivers who are involved in accidents are beside themselves in trauma and great distress. People seem to forget this side of the human tragedy and the driver's need for counselling to get over the shock. Guy who killed the Swiss chap - I understand he has never driven since and needed medical help to cope with depression.

Widow of the chap in Wildy's incident - she is still very upset and blames herself because she did not stop him that day!

But people just do not seem to realise this side in their eagerness to jump on the revenge bandwagon. Sure the infamously notoriously " mischievious Mephistocats " in the Swiss family could have been arguing just as much for cameras on every lamp post given what happened in their family and funding BRAKE instead of other causes including "Road peace", "Learn and Live" and "Safespeed" via odd donations - but they don't. They see the whole side of it.



Yep - guy was speeding - as I recall Mad Doc titlled it "Six of One /Half Dozen of the other" when he posted it up somewhere for discussion last year. But only reason why he escaped the more serious charge was because of the girl's druinken state at the time and had he been driving more slowly or even legally - the outcome would have been the same. Loss of a young life because of youthful desire to to get drunk, defy parents and a shopkeeper who sold her the drink. Personally - I'd like to throw away the key when we prosecute for selling to underages - but the CPS and the Bench Book apparently don't allow this ...

Was a sad case - but GMTV carried the nub behind this sort of potentially tragic and fatal problem on their show this morning - and showed GMP's finest clamping down on children as young as 11 years - and like my GMP colleague on the telly today - there is a parental repsonsibility to know where your kids are - and allowing them to roam the streets at night drinking, drugging and being a severe nuisance to other law abding people and then wringing their hands and blaming other people and screaming for speed cameras should they be run over by a driver, biker or cyclist or milk float just ain't on!



They should be by now..



Oh - if you want awful cycle lanes - I gather the Mad Doc has locked his "Stag" horns with some bloke in his local Council over the ones in the Lakes. Gather the firm commissioned to do the paint job wanted the instuction in written triplicate before they started.

Sure some are dreadful and so badly planned by road planners that one wonders if whoever designed them has half a brain cell.

But Continent have a number of shared lanes with pedestrians and each get fined if they stray into the other's patch!

Swiss gendarmes and Germans are not very nice over this... (They fined me you know when I was 14 and just visiting ... it was "so unfair "! ) Never forgot that lecture though...



As is a "crocodile" of people and a horse .

But then we have tried to get the safety message across in boththe "Improve and Cycling" sections of this board.



We just do not have the man power to nit pick every incident which is dealt with very effectively by insurance companies - and - if treated "knock for knock" - parties still learn and evaluate as a result of assualt on bank accounts to pay for all this [/quote]

Oh indeed - I'm not saying that the police so go through all the beaurocratic process for even the most minor shunt - clearly that'd be absurd (and would really get the Daily Wail going )[/quote]

The apple case The snowball case The case of the kid, the and the water pistol - not to mention the man on the identity parade who was a bit peckish and not a diabetic




All our work has Returns to the Stat Offices...and insurers are also required to send - and all firms send in stuff to do with turnover, salaries, numbers employed and so on...

With that volume of stuff - there will be flaws anyway.



Most of the problems is about trying to do things on the cheap - camera preoccupation is one of them .

Some interesting stats in papers today - New labour jobs advertised in the Grauniad throughout last year totalled to a whopping £787 billion with public sector workers receiving pay increases well in excess of those engaged in the private sector and the average public sector wage was £35K - some £10k more than the priveate sector counterpart gets... #

It's called wasting our money and I may get my salary courtesy of Joe the Public Tax Payer - but at least I try to earn it by delivering the sort of service required - and this per my colleague West Mercia's CC in a press interview - means being accountable, accessible and visible



I beleive there was a case in Blackpool back in 2003 whereby person ran up 12 points but saved on one by opting for the course - Nine points for 34 mph along the prom....

Besides .. 33 mph - a non starter as cambers and tyres affect speed fluctuate and no human can keep steady - try a freewheel on a bike on a downward gradient. It picks up speed very gradually. Also speedos are not that accurate. You do not nit pick over silly blips - makes bad law and bad justice. Common sense applies and we do allow a fair tolerance and we judge on what is actually seen.

Also - most judges interpret the meaning of the statute and not the letter of the statute when deciding the wrong the legislation is supposed to be righting. This sets the precedential rules which bind these courts.



The roads I have in mind - have no hazards. Yet there is a 50 mph road which is residential around here ....



Except that traffic police are depleting in number and ending up as desk jockeys... they sure ain't chasing "terror supsects across the countryside... "



Ah.. but far too often - no more thought is given to a situation other than reduce a speed limit and enforce with a camera - which accounts for all the daftly sited ones - some of which were set up in the early dasy of scamera rule.

But - address the test and give a motivation and ethos of life time learning and put pride of a completing a job well - and accepting constructive criticism - and we may just start to get back to where we started before all the nanny nonsense set in.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Hmmm! Been a since leaving Uni.... entire working life - about as long as you have been alive from what I gather

Spent most of it investigating some accident or other..

During my training - we learned how to drive safely and we also learned the expertise which gives us that knowledge with which to advise those we stop as to safety led behaviour and how to avoid the mistakes which lead to tragedy.

Knowing how accidents happen is the very way we learn the behaviour and attitdes which contribute to the causation and this in turn helps us how to reduce occurrence and severity. There are inextricably linked.



Er- forensics tell us a lot - and lot of policemen around the country are graduates. Us "old farts" hold degrees in proper subjects like Maths and Physics - 9and not "trendologies"


You seem to be quoting from a course book here.... I have read these books

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Ahem. You're patronising me and you haven't answered ANY of the questions.

Yes. I've seen and considered Police accident reports from a number of countries.

In ALL datasets the proportion of crashes caused or contributed to by otherwise responsible drivers exceeding a speed limit is tiny. If you think you have different data, then cite it specifically.

Now if you really want to continue the conversation, please go back to this post and make a fair stab at answering it properly.

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

Around 70% of the attendees at RoSPA's 'Road Safety Wales' conference last year preferred my views on speed cameras to those of Robert Gifford from PACTS on a show of hands.

There's not much of a gap between RoSPA's views and ours, save that RoSPA officially still show far too much faith in the failed policies from DfT.

Where there is a gap, an intelligent observer should consider both cases and make a judgement on merit.

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

Why the question? I wrote:

Why not just answer the question?



Did I say you did? No - I asked a reasonable question. For clarity, I'm asking you whether - and if 'yes', why - you consider that the academic knowledge of a "traffic engineer" (the reason I used quotes is that you appear to be sensitive to incorrect usage of the job title/academic qualification) is more significant than experience and/or advanced driver training in determining 'safe driving' practice.

Why be defensive? Why not just answer the question?



Overlooking the fact that you have again answered a question with a question, I think I made my position clear. I said



Thank you for the explanation, and I note the section emphasised.



There's little or nothing in the links (that I could see) about the process of safe driving. Do you believe (by reason of your qualifications or otherwise) you really understand the process of safe driving? I'm not sure that you do. For example, you appear to believe that excess speed (speed in excess of a posted limit) is a manifestation of unsafe driving. It is not (or only very rarely). Excessive speed (speed inappropriate for the conditions) is unsafe but it is nearly always a symptom of unsafe driving behaviour - a failure of concentration, observation and/or attentiveness. If we wish to make real improvement in road safety (for the momemt confining ourselves to drivers), we need to improve driving behaviour by reducing the incidence of practices that are 'unsafe' and increasing the incidence of practices that are conducive to improved safety. This will automatically improve drivers' ability to set an appropriate speed. Merely slowing drivers down (if it can be achieved) does not make them more observant or attentive or generally "safer" - indeed it risks doing the opposite.

Speed limits (and speed enforcement) are a blunt instrument. They are undoubtedly a necessary part of the road safety picture, but any amount of speed enforcement will not improve the average standard of driving. We can't hope to turn the whole driving population into advanced drivers but we can try to nudge the standards up by using well constructed and directed road safety messages, encouraging (possibly compelling) additional training and so on.

Good Grief!!

A week away(ish) and a thread explodes!

That took some wading through. I lost of various bits part way through when i started to

Only bit that stood out is this one....

.

The problem, of course, is that the government IS effectively saying that the cameras are a panacea, despite the fact that they're not.

Not just out of piste, but out of resort



Of course, but as I say its limiting the risks. You never remove the risk.



Of course, and thats why accidents are rare and random.




Alas, the merits of their arguments are neither here nor there in democracy. Its simply whose voice is loudest.



Well yes, if it is.



There seems to be a double standard here



(From http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speeding.html )

Now I appreciate that (presumably) Paul wrote that and not yourself, but should cyclists be able to pass through red signals, or cycle against a one way street if they know its safe without "being affected by misapplied policing"?

Not that anyone ever knows anything of course - they only think they know.




Oh - if you want awful cycle lanes - I gather the Mad Doc has locked his "Stag" horns with some bloke in his local Council over the ones in the Lakes. Gather the firm commissioned to do the paint job wanted the instuction in written triplicate before they started.

Sure some are dreadful and so badly planned by road planners that one wonders if whoever designed them has half a brain cell.[/quote]

Some of it is certain groups insisting there should be a cycle lane, or tokenism from developers or whatever. The engineers (usually) know when they're not up to task, but don't necessarily get the final say.

.


Indeed - I'm just saying this needs to be taken into account.



The vast majority of remedial measures don't involve cameras, so I don't think that statement isn't especially fair.



Of course, its all very well highlighting waste as an issue - but what do you do about it?




Whilst that is true, it is important to recognise that the speed limit is a limit, and nothing more. You don't have to drive at 30 in a 30, indeed its a good idea to drive a little slower than the limit to largely (though obv not entirely) ensure that any upward drifts don't exceed the limit (and if they do they do so to a lesser degree).



No road has no hazards



Well there are shades of residential - even sections of the A1 have residential frontage



And I don't think anyone would disagree that that needs rectifying.





I don't think thats fair, at least, not until the public or their representitives get involved - but thats the catch of democracy.

Well I wasn't quoting from such a book when I wrote that, but if its etched on the mind

How do you account for the accidents which occur yet no contributory factors are cited?



My point is that you place too much faith in the contributory factors part of the accident reports, and do not properly appreciate the limitations of the data. For instance, as we have discussed, the lack of data on damage-only and unreported accidents has implications when assessing the impact of 20mph zones on accident severities when measuring them in terms of KSI accidents divided through injury accidents. Any accidents which would have been injury accidents but were reduced to damage only accidents would disappear from the denominator of your division - but there would be no corresponding reduction in the numerator, and thus (by your measure) accident severities would go up. Clearly this is bizarre.

Ditto the speed cameras in roadworks scenario. You simply consider the accident rates, but you don't consider the circumstances. One expects more accidents in roadworks where AADT inflows are higher, or where traffic management is more complex. But your analysis doesn't properly consider this. You shouldn't be comparing road works with camera with road works without camera - for the simple reason that the roadworks with cameras are likely to be different in nature than those without - after all, roadworks involving extensive controflows on a busy motorway are more likely to have cameras than a hard shoulder closure on the M45 for a bridge inspection. Instead you should be comparing the accident rates with the camera in a set of roadworks with the expected accident rate for the same set of roadworks, and this can only be done on a site by site basis.



Its not a question of the data being "strange", it is the assumption that all accidents where excessive speed and/or exceeding the speed limit will have this cited as a contributory factor, and that by implication excessive speed and/or exceeding the speed limit isn't a factor when it isn't cited.

As I say, how do you explain the accidents with no contributory factors cited?

When accident locations are analysed, the statistics are used simply to determine where accident clusters are, are accident rates in the cluster beyond expected levels, are there any common circumstances between accidents. This then provides the starting point for further investigations, such as surveys, conflict studies and so on to determine how and why people are failing and thus crashing. The statistics do not do this.

The questioning of the use of terms "road engineer" earlier in the thread was not sensitivity on my part - I was merely wished to find out why those who claimed to know so much about traffic engineering where using such unusual terms[/quote]



Of course being a traffic engineer doesn't make one an advanced driver, nor vice versa.



I think my defensiveness was/is an unfortunate side effect of having to regularily defend against claims which are all too often absurd.



Indeed it is.



But the cause is ultimately the driver (or other road user). There is only so much the driver can be treated, so treating the symptoms has to be considered.



Agreed.



Agreed *but* sometimes a road environment can be such where even to higher-level drivers are unable to properly determine the appropriate speed (the very best may well work it out - but as you say not all drivers will be advanced drivers). You can try to rectify this by warning of a hazard, or by otherwise altering the road environment to encourage the appropriate response - but if that doesn't work, then legislative requirements are imposed. And if drivers don't respond to them, enforcement may be necessary to encourage them to respond appropriately.



Agreed - but that doesn't mean there isn't a role for speed limits and their enforcement. ( as you recognise).

Yes, but you can only tell how effective the cameras are if you can compare results from two broadly similar sites. Otherwise it is simply a matter of blind faith.

_________________
"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

Is it not perhaps a useful portmanteau term to include both highway engineers and traffic engineers (who do complementary but different jobs)?

_________________
"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