Safe Speed Forums

Fantastic article on the front page of the telegraph today - bought it just to read it

key points:
+ only 5% of crashes due to speeding (its official)
+ safe speed quotes were excellent
+ RAC backed more patrols less cams
+ Prof gill challenged the results of safety imrovements
- AA and Prof Gill continue to back cams

Well done paul

details here

It’s looks as though the AA are well and truly intertwined with the government on this, we now have one motoring group against the other.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

you'd think they'd realise it harms there business?

First of all, massive congratulations to Paul! Its not over yet, but it must feel good to know that the campaign's finally getting proper recognition!

I love this parragraph.



So driver error, although responsible for 2/3 of accidents is unimportant because they can't measure it. I like the way they've admitted that 'going too fast for the conditions' is a problem, not just breaking the limit, but I can't help wondering that they're hoping that the majority of readers will miss-read or miss-quote that as just simply 'speeding'.

Effectively they've said that 25% of accidents are due to inappropriate speed for the conditions - one could turn that around rather nicely to say taht 25% of accidents occurred because drivers thought that they 'must be safe, they were within the limit'. Therefore 25% of accidents are due to the speed kills mantra! (Yes I know its wild conjecture!)

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Well, actually that is exactly how my missus interpreted that figure. Her exact quote was 'that will be all the people who drive at 69MPH on a pissing wet motorway....'.

I am a new subscriber to this forum, and would like to comment on the leading article appearing in today's Daily Telegraph. "The case for speed cameras destroyed in a flash"



At the outset, I would say that I appreciate the difference between driving within the pre-determined speed limits and driving at a speed which is commensurate with the prevailing road conditions.

It seems to me that failure to comply with EITHER of these requirements increases the chance of an accident. It does not matter how one chooses to describe the cause of a collision for statistical purposes. It could, for example be disguised as "letting one's attention wander", but the ultimate factor which causes the damage or injury is kinetic energy, which increases with the square of the speed of the vehicle.

Exceeding the speed limit

Speed limits are imposed for good reasons, and only after careful consideration of the local circumstances involved. Their observance is mandatory. Those drivers who contravene them deserve to be penalised. To this end, speed cameras make a valuable contribution to identifying the offenders and ensuring that they are dealt with according to the law. It would appear that their use should be encouraged, rather than decreased or discontinued. This view of the great effectiveness of the cameras is reinforced by the claim that only five per cent of crashes are now caused by drivers exceeding the speed limit.

Near my home (and the village school!) is a speed limit sign, in a prominent position, which lights up in red, showing 30 each time a vehicle exceeds the speed limit. It makes little difference. Every day, this sign is flagrantly disregarded. Perhaps it should be given some teeth. There is nothing like the possibility of being hit in the pocket for focussing the attention on one's speed! I cannot help wondering how many more crashes would occur if speed cameras were to be withdrawn.

Driving at a sensible speed, commensurate with prevailing conditions.

Admittedly, this is a more difficult problem, as the responsibility for safe driving ultimately rests entirely with the driver. It is hard to see how any automated system can successfully address all the complex factors involved here. However, I do feel that this should NOT be advanced as an argument for getting rid of some or all of the cameras.

Perhaps, if it could be shown that if the road conditions at the time of exceeding the statutary speed limit were adverse, (eg wet or icy surface, snow, poor visibility, high traffic density) a higher penalty could be imposed. It may be possible to design a more sophisticated camera that could record & take into account some of these conditions, as well as noting the vehicle particulars.

Welcome BH to the debate... If only speed limits were set according to the max safe speed for the conditions. the reality is that they are not.

here is a brief history of how speed limits are set:

Up until the mid-90s speed limits were set according to the 85th percentile of speed that drivers would choose in the absence of a limit.

So if the avg speed chosen was say 50mph and the 85th percentile was 60mph the limit was 60. this is because there is decades of research to show that drivers who drive at or about the 85th percentile are least likely to crash. drive much faster or much slower and the risk (due to speed differential) goes up.

since 2000 and the introduction of speed management strategies local authorites (often against the advice of the police) have been setting limits according to the mean speed of traffic. (i.e. if the limit is 60 there's a good chance most people will drive at this speed or less - allowing for the accuracy of your speedo the mean speed is likely to be between 40 and 50mph - so the limit is lowered to 40 or 50 mph (note that the process can be repeated next year to allow the limit to be lowered again). There were also social engineering reasons for reducing speed limits (key point - not safety).

Many road safety campaigners objected (IAM RoADA etc) and feared that inappropriately low limits would incourage all limits to be ingnored or be seen as target (for example it can be pretty daft to do 30mph down a busy high street).

The govt. has just passed new policy that encourages inapproprate speed limits so the situation will get worse.

So if speeding is as dangerous as drink driving - is it possible to drive safely without looking at your speedo?

If speed kills how come the roads with the highest limits have much view accidents per bvkm than those with the lowest limits?

if 80% of children die when hit at 40mph how come only 1.5% of children hit by cars in urban areas (where 60% of the population exceed the posted limit) actually die?

10-15 years ago when we had a sensible approach to limits and a sensible approach to enforcement only 1% of drivers were prosecuted for speeding - now its over 10%

Its much more important for drivers to concentrate on the hazards of the road, pay attention to what they see, develop a proper driving plan and adapt that plan, than concentrate on driving within the speed limit.

i.e. look at the road not your speedo

Hi BH, allow me to be the first... oops, scrub that, diy beat me to it... second to bid you welcome .


The speed limits that are set, and the speed at which careful, observant and competent drivers drive do not always correspond.

The reasons are numerous, and by reading some of the articles on this sight you can learn a lot about road safety and speed related issues.

I wish you a pleasant and fruitful time on the SafeSpeed forum.

Well, you see that is why this latest report on contributory factors is being (sensibly) reported at the same time as police statistics for accident levels are being questioned. The reality is that hospital admittance figures for fatalities and casualties from road accidents have remained largely unchanged since speed cameras were introduced, fluctuating by a few percent year to year.

At best this can be viewed as meaning speed camera policy (ie. the whole 'speed kills' mentality) is having no effect whatsoever at reducing casualties. At worst, taking into account improvements in vehicle safety that have become more widespread during the period camera use has increased, camera policy has actually negated these other benefits ie. made drivers less safe as a result of the distraction effect and/or the inappropriate message that the speed limit is the safe speed for the road.

Taking the current reports into consideration there can be no other conclusions. The idea that slower speeds means less severe crashes is all well and good in theory, but practice is proving this is not the case as slow inattentive drivers seem to be having just as many accidents, and injuring or killing just as many people.....

Lower speed limits do not necessarily mean slower crashes. A driver who is concentrating and choosing an appropriate speed for the conditions will slow down for the hazards and not crash at all. Someone who is not concentrating may well crash at whatever their cruising speed was.

Thank you diy & Supertramp for your replies & words of welcome.

I'm afraid that I have little faith in arguing a case based solely on statistics released by National Government and printed in newspapers, or issued by a website, since they may have been manipulated, or might be erroneous and capable of interpretation in so many different, conflicting ways. Nobody seems to be in possession of accurate data upon which to build a meaningful debate. So you can go round in circles and get nowhere. (A bit like driving in London!)

All I can do is to apply a modicum of common sense to the subject of speed cameras, based on 45 years of driving experience, with a clean licence throughout & not even a parking ticket . I tried to do this in my first posting, and I still stand by what I said.

I would add one further comment...

Whatever decisions are made in future at Government level regarding the size of speed limits will not please everyone. So I hope that they will err on the side of lower limits. As a rule of thumb, higher speeds mean greater damage or injury in the event of an accident, a smaller margin for driver error, higher fuel consumption, hence greater atmospheric pollution. Many of our roads are now getting so congested that very little time is saved on a journey by driving fast on the clear bits. You won't keep it up for long before you hit the next tailback, traffic lights or roundabout. It's getting worse year by year, so you might as well be philosophical about it, and bow to the inevitable!!

PS As regards the absence of parking tickets, I'm no angel - just a bit quicker than the parking warden, that's all!!

I have relatives who work in the NHS, so I know not to trust government statistics, as they are engineered and tweaked to look good. I always thought that 33% of accidents caused by speeding was on the high side, as driving along a 30mph two-lane dual carriageway bypass at a sensible 40-50mph for the particular road in question is not dangerous in the slightest, unlike driving at 30mph on a 30mph High Street on the other side of town.

Hello, and welcome "BH"..


The thing is, we aren't arguing a case "based solely on statistics.. .. printed in newspapers", we're working from the original DfT reports before the journalists have had their chance to misinterpret the figures!

A subject like this can only be approached from a statistical basis, anecdotal evidence or "personal experience" is simply too limited in scope to be able to draw any valid conclusions whatsoever. Suffice it to say that the majority of the denizens of this site support the use of sensibly set speed limits that are enforced with intelligence and discretion, which is the exact antithesis of the existing "policing by camera" methods - and which have now been proven, by the Government's own research establishments, to be completely inneffective as a tool for promoting road safety.

It would seem that the biggest contributor to accidents is simply drivers and/or pedestrians not looking where they're going... Speed is almost an irrelevence.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

All common misconceptions based on an oversimplified view of the system that is driving and road traffic on general. There is plenty research based evidence contained within this site to suggest that the above preconceptions are not a good basis for road safety policy.

As for congestion and environmental issues - ask yourself how much of that is created by manipulation of road engineering to favour inefficient modes of transport (empty bus lanes) or create the impression of congestion (badly phased traffic lights and artificially narrowed roads and junctions) to add weight to a hidden agenda.

Oh, and higher speeds do not necessarily mean higher fuel consumption. It really isn't that simple, and may I recommend that you avail yourself as to the reasons why.

And if you do manage to get one be sure to check out the parking Tickets forum at PePiPoo.

_________________
Andrew.

Hi and



I don't actually believe that (in the real world).

Firstly driver response completely swamps any possible benefit of a lower speed limit. See this PR issued today:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/227
Be sure to carefully consider the issues.

Secondly 'time to react' isn't something that is given to drivers, it is something that they make for themselves. See: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/timetoreact.html

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

Humm,
I drive to burm at about 6:30-7:15, It is not congested, just busy(mostly free flowing). Parts of the route are heavily engineered, loads of traffic lights (Two sets on the A38 where the M6 toll road is.). The best I can average speed ~ 30 mph average mpg 32-34.

If I drive on the motorway average speed ~60mph average mpg 36-40

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

Come on 'BH' , lets go the whole hog and prevent all movement over 15 mph. We should have total safety then shouldn't we!! Is this what you want ? State what you think should be applied.

After, all if lower and lower limits fail to work, we end up at ZERO eventually, OR every motorist banned and the country at a stand.

And before you ask, I have over 40 years experience without accidents; not far off yourself.

I think I DO agree that wilful, reckless speeding needs hammering on heavily, though.

PS: my local authority are introducing a much longer length of speed limit near me, (30 mph) and local councilor says it is to stop people diverting from the by-pass. It's already 30 in the village, by the way. So nothing at all to do with safety, just malice.

_________________
Good manners maketh a good motorist

Quite so. There is nothing safer than a road full of stationary traffic
In the days before the coming of the horseless carriage, it took our ancestors days to accomplish a journey that we can now complete in a matter of hours. Just remember that. Any faster, and you'll meet yourself coming back !!

Personally, I'm reasonably satisfied with the regulatory systems currently in force, so I don't particularly want to see them changed. I just get fed up with those who keep griping on about wanting to emasculate the speed cameras. Even so, I respect the rights of such individuals, who are fully entitled to express their views, however misguided they may appear to be.

I am grateful to this forum for according to me the privilege of airing my views, and stirring things up a bit!! You all rise to the bait rather too readily, you know!!!

TTFN, BH

Unfortunately BH I am not going to be so welcoming while you ignore the government's own evidence that the current regulatory system has failed to improve road safety and may in fact have actually contributed to a worsening of the situation ie. more people have died on the roads than need have been the case.



Your support for such a system makes you complicit IMO, and ignorance or obedience is no excuse.