[Closed] A9 average speed camera preparatory work starts today

Only on STW could people who have never driven on a road pass judgement about the driving on said road.

FWIW I'm not actually that bothered about average speed cameras on the A9. I drive up it twice a year (maybe).

But installing them will cause 6 months of roadworks and they are being placed in the areas where there is the least accidents.

Only on STW could people who have never driven on a road pass judgement about the driving on said road.

Wait a minute. I'm talking about speeding in general. It may be that this road is special, and pepole should be allowed to drive as fast as they like on it, but given the accident stats this doesn't sound like a good idea.

I understand that it is straight and has few junctions - I can use a map and google streetview - but apparently there's some special quality I can only understand by being there? Like Woodstock?

Anyway back to seriousness:

Speed cameras (average or otherwise) might deal with speeding, but not inappropriate speed (which in many/most cases will be within the speed limit).

Of course. But given that there are accidents happening, if more people are travelling more slowly then regardless of accident, consequences will be less severe. I don't see why this is controversial..?

Of course. But given that there are accidents happening, if more people are travelling more slowly then regardless of accident, consequences will be less severe. I don't see why this is controversial..?

It appears the vast majority of accidents take place within the speed limit (from the official accident analysis) so while there may be some positive impact it doesn't look like it'll be big. i.e. If most of the accidents are happening within the speed limit then introducing cameras isn't going to lower the average speeds, so won't make accidents less severe. That's what's controversial i.e. perhaps the cash might be better spent on other safety related factors.

I'd ask you to explain why reducing the speed limit will mean that people will stick to the reduced limit when they apparently don't stick to the higher limit, but i doubt there would be much point.

I get the impression that you've never driven somewhere where there are average speed cameras.

No one in the OP's link is talking about "reducing the speed limit", where do you get that from ? Average speed cameras are installed to stop individual drivers from exceeding the maximum permitted speed limit. IME they are extremely successful in doing exactly that. They also have the effect of making drivers drive more calmly and with greater space between vehicles, IME.

No, I was just wondering if you knew anything about what you're talking about.

[img] [/img]

No worries mols, it wasn't specifically directed at you, you not the only contributor to the tread who hasn't actually driven along the road in the title.

PS I'm off to Mumsnet to post on a topic about menstrual pain. I've never actually menstruated but I am aware of "pain" in general, so I think I'm well qualified to comment 😀

It appears the vast majority of accidents take place within the speed limit (from the official accident analysis)

That's a fair point. Does the accident analysis report speed at impact, or initial speed?

you not the only contributor to the tread who hasn't actually driven along the road in the title.

Why does this matter? I know it's long and straight with few junctions - what else do I need to know?

They also have the effect of making drivers drive more calmly and with greater space between vehicles, IME.

😆 😆 😆

Sorry Che, I live just off the A14 and have very differing experiences.
Chronic tailgating and snail racing between cars as well as HGVs. I'm told the road is now safer but accidents still bring the road to a standstill on an almost daily basis.

That's a fair point. Does the accident analysis report speed at impact, or initial speed?

It's a determination of whether speeding was a contributing factor - not a measurement of what the speed was at impact.

There's no need to apologize sbob if your experience has been different. And if it's made you laugh hysterically, as apparently it has, then so much the better 🙂

So tailgating with no chance of overtaking is your experience of average seed cameras ? Well there's a lot of daft people in this world and I guess many must live close to you.

I'm told the road is now safer but .....

But you know better.

I'm told the road is now safer but accidents still bring the road to a standstill on an almost daily basis.

Wow, it must have been really bad before. I can see why they put the cameras in...

😉

It's a determination of whether speeding was a contributing factor - not a measurement of what the speed was at impact.

Right.. so no indication of whether or not lives will be saved then?

So tailgating with no chance of overtaking is your experience of average seed cameras ? Well there's a lot of daft people in this world and I guess many must live close to you.

The standard of driving on the A14 is notoriously abysmal, but I'm happy to bring up the average.
It simply isn't designed for the sheer volume of traffic that use it.
Definitely one of the worst roads in the UK, although still not as bad as the A9.

Right.. so no indication of whether or not lives will be saved then?

It's an assessment of whether speeding was a contributory factor. Not sure what your point is. The official accident survey says speeding isn't a factor in the vast majority of accidents on the road, so it's unclear why you think enforcing the existing speed limit will drastically impact safety on the road. I'd have thought spending any available money on something that will significantly affect safety might be a better idea.

bails - Member

Wow, it must have been really bad before. I can see why they put the cameras in...
😉

Hmmm....
Placing large NSL signs had a greater effect on reducing speed as half the muppets using the road think the limit for cars is 60.

I love average sped cameras, mainly because motorcycles are immune to a lot of them 😈
I pass one very badly thought out on where the M25 meets the M3 every day. It's only set up for cars entering from the M25, and as I'm going straight through on the M3, I only pass the second camera. Immune in the car as well! Bonus! (Not that I ever take the car)

It's only set up for cars entering from the M25, and as I'm going straight through on the M3, I only pass the second camera. Immune in the car as well! Bonus! (Not that I ever take the car)

It's an assessment of whether speeding was a contributory factor. Not sure what your point is.

Well - is the point to reduce accidents, or improve safety?

Molgrips:
Of course. But given that there are accidents happening, if more people are travelling more slowly then regardless of accident, consequences will be less severe. I don't see why this is controversial..?

I don't use that road either but I can imagine that most if not all the crashes will be the result of overtaking or pulling back in. If a driver chooses to rag the arse off his astravan for 400 yards to get past a lorry and exceeds the limit, it will not have a significant effect on his average speed (unless he does hit a lorry coming the other way 🙁 ).

Although IME average speed cameras do have the effect on speed that Ernie reports, I'd suggest that it's because it empowers the stupid and/or sanctimonious to abandon all thoughts of lane discipline and drive at 5-10mph less than the limit in any and all lanes, braking further when the next camera actually appears 😀 . I see a lot of drivers tailgating and ranting in these "queues" but then I've only experienced them on short stretches of an otherwise 70 limit motorway and I think Ernie's talking about much longer stretches of the M25, say

It isn't controversial, and I think we all recognise that limiting speed to 20mph would probably reduce serious accidents massively

Thanks for the reductio ad absurdum. I am of course not advocating sticking to 20mph, but maybe enforcing the 60mph limit and trying to stop people doing 80 would save some lives.

I can imagine that most if not all the crashes will be the result of overtaking or pulling back in.

Yes, and if more people are going more slowly there'll be fewer fatalities. It won't catch the crap overtaker, but it will stop the rep in his Merc driving too fast out of habit.

On the A417 they started leaving the smashed up cars by the roadside for a few weeks. Seemed to have a bit of an affect. I think they should also erect a temporary screen with video footage of the crash on a loop.

Although IME average speed cameras do have the effect on speed that Ernie reports, I'd suggest that it's because it empowers the stupid and/or sanctimonious to abandon all thoughts of lane discipline and drive at 5-10mph less than the limit in any and all lanes, braking further when the next camera actually appears . I see a lot of drivers tailgating and ranting in these "queues" but then I've only experienced them on short stretches of an otherwise 70 limit motorway and I think Ernie's talking about much longer stretches of the M25, say

They enable traffic to flow much better for longer for higher volumes through 50mph roadwork sections on normal motorways. Far better than the old 50mph signs plus one or two Gatsos. At a high enough volume, the traffic will always slow down but in any sections I've used regularly, they work very well.

Thanks for the reductio ad absurdum. I am of course not advocating sticking to 20mph, but maybe enforcing the 60mph limit and trying to stop people doing 80 would save some lives.

Yes, and if more people are going more slowly there'll be fewer fatalities. It won't catch the crap overtaker, but it will stop the rep in his Merc driving too fast out of habit.

I am not convinced- I've seen a lot of terrible driving on the A9 and lots of it had nothing to do with speeding. A fair bit had to do with incredibly slow overtakes in fact, which this could make worse, something about average speed cameras seems to compel a lot of drivers to go at exactly the speed limit.

Hopefully I'm wrong but I don't think it'll have a huge positive impact and Ireckon it could well have some negative. I reckon the most useful thing they could do is just add about twice as many "dual carriageway in X miles" signs as there are just now, and possibly some others that say "Don't be a **** in the dual carriageway sections, yes you, the guy who'll use the entire 2 mile stretch to do an overtake while 500 cars are stuck behind"

But I thought you'd just agreed that it was the overtaker (clearly, only the crap ones) who causes the crashes

Nothing of the sort! I did use the words 'crap overtaker' though.

Crashes are caused by all sorts of things, most of which are very hard to stop people doing. However there's one thing common to every single crash - the faster people are going, the more likely they are to die in that crash.

Couple that with speed being very easy to measure, you've got something worth trying.

Just to re-iterate - I'm not saying lower speed prevents crashes. I'm saying that it makes crashes less serious.

I'd rather have signs that said 'relax, take it easy, it's not worth the hassle' along with pictures of tropical islands, beautiful people, horses galloping through fields, couples cuddled up on sofas.. that kind of thing. Maybe pipe some gentle music through loudspeakers.

I guess I should preface my comments by saying that I use the A9 [b]a lot[/b]. For a start, it's actually my commute. By the rules previously established in this thread, I think that makes me the resident expert and therefore my opinion obviously counts more than anyone elses 😆

The A9 is awash with speeding motorists. In fact, I'd say it's a fairly small minority that stay within the limits.

By far the worst offenders are van and HGV drivers. If I take my van (50mph on single carriageways remember - and I drive allowing for speedo error) I'm constantly being caught up by larger trucks, some flashing at me to go faster. I don't see why I should be aiding and abetting criminal behaviour.

The HGV drivers have been pushing to have their speed limit increased to 50mph as it will, apparently, make things safer by reducing convoys. Personally, I'd rather overtake a truck driving at 40mph than one driving at 50mph. The limit [i]is[/i] going to be increased - once the speed cameras are installed. I guess that, otherwise, they'd simply speed up to 60mph (or above).

Now - is speeding the greatest cause of accidents on the A9? I wouldn't say so. Rubbish overtaking seems to come up most often. However, reducing speed [i]will[/i] reduce the severity of many impacts and might, on occasion, even provide enough time to avoid one altogether.

Where is everyone going in such a hurry anyway?

This thread is predictably devoid of facts!

But the facts unquestionably show that average speed cameras reduce KSI numbers in roads like the A9. So it seems a reasonable approach to install the cameras. Every road is unique though so the true test of integrity for the traffic planner will be to remove them if the don't work.

They almost certainly will work though.

molgrips - Member

I'd rather have signs that said 'relax, take it easy, it's not worth the hassle'

Aye. That's also the point of the "dual in 2 miles" signs, they discourage people from overtaking til they get there.

In theory.....

What pisses me off on the A9 is that what should be a safe overtake becomes hazardous because Mr Fangio Important coming the other way is doing 90mph+.

Basically that means there are very few safe places to overtake.

If the average speed cameras slow those characters down it will make the road a safer place.

What pisses me off on the A9 is that what should be a safe overtake becomes hazardous because Mr Fangio Important coming the other way is doing 90mph

Exactly. Most of the pro speeders are only thinking about controlling their own car on the road. They seem oblivious to how their speeding affects other road users.

molgrips - Member

In theory.....

It definitely works. If only on me! But overtaking and general bellendry always seems to reduce before the dual sections.

There will always be some ahole wanting past. Seen it many times, queue of traffic and, said ahole, gunning it past as many cars a possible , always causes a sharp intake of breath waiting on the inevitable, usually driver going other direction flashing headlight and taking avoiding actions. It always seems to be innocent parties that come of worst.

Sooner it's dualled the better.

There will always be some ahole wanting past. Seen it many times, queue of traffic and, said ahole, gunning it past as many cars a possible

Is that cause you're in a rally team ?

Another A9 daily commuter here. There is a lot of self righteous twaddle being written which bears no resemblance to the actuality of driving on the road.
I waste 80mins of each day driving to and from work on the A9. I see spectacular near misses several times a week and have seen the air ambulance land more often than I like. The accidents and misses I see are not due to cars doing 90+. Ever.
As has been pointed out, the evidence shows that high speeds are not the issue. My crap car doesn't do over 70 at the best of times and it's incredibly rare that I'm overtaken by cars doing loads of mph more than me. What does cause the tailbacks and risky overtaking is the HGVs sticking to their speed limit and collecting huge lines of cars which can only pass on the short overtaking lanes and dualled sections. Most lorry drivers drive way above the 40 limit and this is what keeps the flow of the road and stops stupid overtaking. When you get the drivers of heavily limited or monitored vehicles the natural flow goes and the dangers increase. I have yet to see a non snowy incident on a dualled section for the simple reason that the traffic able to flow at it's natural speed.
Average speed cameras will just reinforce the HGV lower speed limit and this is the real problem. If all the traffic was able and allowed to drive at the same average speed there would be not be a problem but different speed limits on the same stretch of road dependent on vehicle type cause the problem. Add in the single lane, overtaking lane, dual carriageway mix to confuse those that don't know the road and you have the recipe for the current problems.
On the section of the road I drive, speed cameras are very likely to increase incidents as the multiple speed limits are enforced.

Likely thought process:
Average speed cameras enforcing 60 limit.
Been stuck behind truck at 45 for 5 mins
Ok to boot it past them!

What does cause the tailbacks and risky overtaking is the HGVs sticking to their speed limit

No. HGVs cause the tailbacks, the drivers are entirely responsible for their own risky driving. Just like cyclists are not responsible for bad passing manoevres.

Very bloody important point.

If all the traffic was able and allowed to drive at the same average speed

Lol. It is! You are perfectly entitled to drive at 40mph in your car, same as the HGVs!

Driving around normally I'll see drivers in front who, I feel, don't want to overtake and maybe don't know how to. They'll often be found at the front of a line of cars, right behind an artic. And I guess when these people drive on the A9, the distance still to go front of them leads them to try. So sometimes they do so badly, with sad results.

Detecting, training, more training, then someone saying 'Sorry, but you ain't up to driving'.

The 50 limit on trucks is going to be interesting.

The 50 limit on trucks is going to be interesting.

Aye. That's also the point of the "dual in 2 miles" signs, they discourage people from overtaking til they get there.

IME it's the supermarket lorries that all stick rigidly to the 40 mph limit. It's strange but sitting at 50 is a lot less frustrating than sitting at 40.

No. HGVs cause the tailbacks, the drivers are entirely responsible for their own risky driving. Just like cyclists are not responsible for bad passing manoevres.

Lol. It is! You are perfectly entitled to drive at 40mph in your car, same as the HGVs!

Aye, and would you be happy to drive at 40 the whole way knowing that it's safe to drive at 60 or 70 instead? If you would be then you've got a lot more patience than anyone else I know.

And of course the drivers are responsible for their own behaviour but if you take out the tailbacks that risky behaviour becomes less common as there's less impetus for it. Much easier to fix that than driver behaviour.

Aye, and would you be happy to drive at 40 the whole way knowing that it's safe to drive at 60 or 70 instead?

If it was choked with HGVs then I'd suck it up and chill out, yes. I overtake where there's a point, but if it's as busy and choked up as everyone says the A9 is, why risk it? It's a lot of hassle for no significant benefit. Life's short enough as it is.

if you take out the tailbacks

How're you going to do that, short of dualling it all? Even at 50mph people get worked up into a homicidal rage, just look at the hatred for caravanners. So there'll still be death defying overtaking.

BigButSlimmerBloke - Member

The other thing I did see a few times, especially southbound, were 3 or 4 cars bunched up behind an HGV not overtaking but with not enough room between them to let someone else pull in, so committing to an overtake meant having to pass all of them and there's very few stretches where that would be possible

And they were ALL Molgrips, waiting for their turn 😉

But yeah, this is a personal hate, bad driving takes many forms- you can guarantee those guys all think they're being really safe by driving slowly and not overtaking. Even the one 10 feet behind the truck who has absolutely no visibility.

Molgrips is of course completely right, it's not the discourteous driving or the 40mph limits that cause bad driving, it's the bad drivers. But, they are contributory, and reducing the triggers should (will, imo) reduce the bad driving.

So you just have to weigh up the negative impacts, frexample if the speed for trucks can be lifted without introducing specific risks (ie, higher speed is inherently bad in a crash but the question is more about the capacity of the road- I've never driven a truck, no idea if it's reasonable to look at 50mph) then it's a good idea.

But, they are contributory, and reducing the triggers should (will, imo) reduce the bad driving.

The problem is, some people seem to expect empty roads, and can't handle it when there's anything in front of them going less than 90mph. People are not rational - most don't think '55mph is fast enough, I'm happy'.

just put up no overtaking signs, and more solid white lines 😉

would certainly make sense if the limit was consistent for all vehicles. but then I've got stuck at 45 behind an italian camper van or truck only to be caught by a truck I'd passed a few mins earlier. so plenty of trucks must be doing 50 when others are doing 40.

and most daredevil overtakers that have had to double pass me and a truck, I've caught up a few minutes down the road when they've got stuck behind the first truck after a dual zone.

most daredevil overtakers that have had to double pass me and a truck, I've caught up a few minutes down the road when they've got stuck behind the first truck after a dual zone.

That's why it's madness. You just can't make significant progress on roads like these without a really fast car and a deathwish, so why bother? Just relax.