Safe Speed Forums

Granted - but thats it.



Insert your own Albert Einstein quote here



There are a proportion of accident clusters where that is the case.

Given we are talking site specific issue - whats the relevance of it is many roads or not?



Indeed



Or 25 or 26.......

And I suggest where 36 or 37 would be an appropriate speed, 40 would be an appropriate limit (it is after all a limit, not a target).



Indeed. But what if it is causing a problem?



And you base this on what?

Maybe the fact people perceive speeding to be least dangerous on these sections of road is why people are coming to grief by driving too fast? (if that is happening)

This is a good point.

When roads are re-engineered to reduce the perceived safe speed - Safe Speeders moan about it!

That's inappropriate speed then. Nothing to do with the speed limit.



If it's more than ~10% then EITHER a) Something in the environment misleads OR b) There's some local skew of the driver population.

If it's less than ~10% then you need to reach the drivers with the skills or attitude problems.



I gave you fair (albeit brief) answers. I wasn't very happy with your attitude at the time. If you come here in a spirit of discovery you'll find that many (including me) are prepared to discuss such issues in microscopic detail.

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

Study this: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rules.html



Nope. It isn't happening. At least not in any normal places.

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

Yes, but once again you have implied something is general and then later acknowledged it is relatively infrequent. Of course such places exist, but that can't be said of the typical suburban main road with a 30 limit and an 85th percentile in the mid to high 30s.


Yes, but that is so rarely done nowadays, is it? And IIRC some official guidelines recommend rounding down from around 37.


Well, if it really is causing a problem then a camera might be a sensible solution. I have said before that I can see a limited role for high-vis fixed cameras in locations where the road appearance is genuinely out of line with the maximum safe speed.


I drive around a lot. I see plenty of Gatsos and Talivans situated on the widest, straightest, least developed portions of roads. I see very few on shopping streets or outside schools. Are you saying that speeding is less dangerous on shopping streets and outside schools?

And Paul has of course done a webpage on the subject:

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

_________________
"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

Are we going to continue this discussion sometime?

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

A good start would be to stop SCPs from analysing their "own" statisics and reviewing their "own" performance.

Another step would be to give the raw data to an independent statistician. (yes, professionals can be independent and unbiased - trust me they're out there!)

Another step would be to stop using misleading KSI figures. Why not publish the two separately?

Another step would be to release raw accident causation statistics, making them freely available to all.

(Of couse, SCPs are not going to ever release such statistics unless they are forced to. Why would any £multi-million busness deliberately shoot itself in the foot?)

To my mind, their extreme reluctance to divulge this information, in itself, speaks volumes.
If they were on the level, this information would, at the very least, silence the critics.
Why aren't they shouting this from the rooftops?

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

Because it would undermine their very existence?

But we've been here before - surely the point of speed limits is to provide one mechanism to discourage inappropriate speed and deal with those who use speed inappropriately?

And of course, everyone has a different idea of acceptable risk - so we need to define what speed creates unacceptable risk so everyone knows where they stand.



Why do you suggest the skew has to be local?



Perhaps by sending them on speed awareness courses?

Or disqualify them if they continually flout the law?



But you wouldn't expand on them when asked, for instance, w.r.t. your so-far-unevidenced claim that the Dutch fatality figures are somehow dodgy.



I wasn't exactly on cloud 9 with yours.



Perhaps we could start now.

How does your analysis of the impact of speed cameras in road works take into account variations in the nature of and inflows into road works?

We've done that one before.

Why exactly would speed cameras be needed if people are obeying the limit? What purpose would it serve?



And you base this on what?

Surely even if there was some sort of external auditing, SCPs should be able to evaluate their performance internally?



But yet when the DfT does commission such a report (eg from PA Consulting Group and UCL) its simply derided ("well it was comissioned by the DfT, so it would say that")

So if the DfT cannot commission such an independant report, how is it to happen?



Because the random variation of fatal accidents is such that figures would fluctuate wildly, and thus the media and others would use these fluctuations to score points without considering this random variation.



Of course, accident reports are not for SCPs to release.



See above.

Yes. But that only applies to a minority of drivers - mostly inexperienced ones.

The problem is that most cases of inappropriate speed are well within the speed limit so the limit is useless for those. And worse still, too much emphasis on the limit is INCREASING inappropriate speed within the limit as folk switch to using the limit to set their speed.



Oh rubbish. There's no such 'external' defintion. Is 29mph safe?



That was hearsay and stated as such.



Have you read TRL595? That's the only possible starting point.

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

You get to nick the occasional nutter. That's the ONLY possible use for a speed camera.



Hundreds of thousands of miles of driving experience. A long term interest in the subject and something around 14,000 hours on the safe Speed campaign.

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

Cite?



That still leaves the rest.



Surely this is a failure of peoples driving and skills, rather than a failure of cameras?

I think if people are difficulty understanding HC Rule 104, then they shouldn't be on the road regardless of speed cameras.



Thats my point.

There is no definition, no absolute correct value. There is a choice for society - what speed is acceptable, and what isn't. Hence speed limits.



So there is extremely little to suggest that the Dutch approach (mandatory VSLs on autosnelwegs, 30km/h zones, 60 km/h zones, speed cameras hidden in wheelie bins etc) isn't working.



We're not talking about TRL595 or the analysis of TRL - we're talking about your analysis of (some of) the data contained in TRL595 as detailed at http://www.safespeed.org.uk/trl595.html .

How does *your* (not TRL's) analysis of the impact of speed cameras in road works take into account variations in the nature of and inflows into road works?

Is that a 'no' then?

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

Despite the contrary being claimed by certain individuals, i maintain the following stance:

Speed limits should be set appropriately.

Speed limits should be set by unbiased professionals with foundations in road safety, and not be set because of political correctness.

The effectiveness of speed camera partnerships should be reviewed independently, not by those with a vested interest in generating revenue.

Accident causation data should be made available. (NB, this does not have to be actual accident reports ncp, a table of anonymised data would suffice.)

Until this occurs, intelligent indivduals will regard SCP data as propaganda, and quite rightfully so!

There is a branch of mathematics used to deal with the "Wild variations" you claim would result, if killed and seriously injured accidents were to be reported seperately.

Its called statistics, specifically statistical significance.

I did have the whole paper but I think I may have deleted it now. I'll have a look later.

Found an article in the bmj that may be of interest:
http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/4/2/89

So you support the placing of artificial obstructions in the road which demonstrably cause collissions. This is the sort of Alice in Wonderland thinking that characterises road saftey in this country at the moment.