[Closed] Traffic Cameras - why not?

That's totally what proper observation when driving is for. If you don't know how to anticipate or make consideration for all the above when driving (whether traveling above or below the posted limit) then it's probably time to consider taking an advanced driving or observation course.

You can't tell the accident history of a road just by looking at it.

But the most important issue here is assuming that your skills are perfect, you know everything there is to know, and you can't make a mistake. This is not the case.

And another thing - just ask yourself how good other drivers are. I expect that like the rest of us you have a fairly low opinion. So given that so many of them are crap, better they are going slower rather than faster no?

"Wah wah it's a limit not a target" is a massive oversimplification, it's just low-hanging fruit.

I'm not over-simplifying it. No-one on here has EVER argued in favour of controlling speed INSTEAD of good driving. I'm arguing that consistent speeds are important, and that speed limits are generally a responsible speed at which to be travelling.

We'd all love loads of traffic cops all over the place pinging people for shit driving. But until then, we have speed limits.

There seems to be a general notion that speed limits are arbitrary

... because they are. The road conditions are a world apart from when the limits were set. Driven a Ford Anglia up a near-deserted M6 lately? How does that compare with being in the middle lane at rush hour in a modern car? Are your hazards the same? How does the increase in car ability (breaking performance for instance) together with the increase in traffic affect what is a safe speed limit? 70mph is probably far too fast here. This is why the managed motorways win; they [i]actually adapt to the conditions.[/i]

and that as a driver you instinctively know what the "correct" safe speed for a road is

... non sequitur. Some drivers can drive to the conditions perfectly safely. Some cannot (but may think they can). Which is why we have (and need) speed limits.

But next time you are hurtling down an unknown road at 70mph when it is inexplicably signed as a 40

You seem to have drivers in the former category conflated with the latter. Someone who can drive to the conditions wouldn't be hurtling down an unknown 40mph road at 70mph because it's an unknown road. See how this works?

I'm not over-simplifying it. No-one on here has EVER argued in favour of controlling speed INSTEAD of good driving.

I can't be bothered to check the veracity of that so I'll take your word for it. Nonetheless, regardless of what we have or haven't said on a web forum that's exactly what IS happening, and that is what I'm objecting to. Speed needs to be managed but a) it needs to be managed better as the existing prevalent method is crap, and b) it's the tip of the iceberg in terms of road safety, in fact it's almost a misdirection.

But the most important issue here is assuming that your skills are perfect, you know everything there is to know, and you can't make a mistake.

You're the one making assumptions, and like your esteemed colleague you've missed the point. I don't assume my skills are perfect, far from it. And this, again, comes down to driving to the conditions; my own ability (or lack thereof) is part of that. A good driver can drive to the conditions. A driver who cannot is, ipso facto, not a good driver even if he thinks he is.

...This is not the case.

I totally agree.

You can't tell the accident history of a road just by looking at it

No but you can get a pretty accurate assessment of the possible hazards on any given stretch of road by using good observation and anticipation skills so not sure why accident history matters really?

What's important is the standard of your driving and making suitable allowances for the conditions at the time you're traveling on the said road. Accident statistics are historical - what actually matters is what's going around you at the time and in the near future.

That's totally what proper observation when driving is for. If you don't know how to anticipate or make consideration for all the above when driving (whether traveling above or below the posted limit) then it's probably time to consider taking an advanced driving or observation course.

Do they teach you to be psychic then? You're on an unknown road. How do you determine the accident history of that road using your advanced driving techniques?

My point is about access to information. You are assuming you have access to more information than the person that set the limit. That's not always true.

Someone who can drive to the conditions wouldn't be hurtling down an unknown 40mph road at 70mph because it's an unknown road.

I'm quite willing to bet that there are plenty of "advanced drivers" on here who would be perfectly happy to exceed the speed limit by that much on an unknown road.

No but you can get a pretty accurate assessment of the possible hazards on any given stretch of road by using good observation and anticipation skills so not sure why accident history matters really?

Assuming everything important is actually in view of course.. you don't know what's out of your vision do you?

What's important is the standard of your driving and making suitable allowances for the conditions at the time you're traveling on the said road. Accident statistics are historical - what actually matters is what's going around you at the time and in the near future.

Indeed. But as I said, two points - 1) you're not alone on the road and your speed affects others, 2) you make mistakes, like everyone else, and consequences of mistakes are worse at higher speeds.

So drive safely, anticipate, and stick to the sodding speed limit.

That's all there is to it.

You have more information than whoever put up those signs, so you can decide when it is safe to go fast.

Technically yes, since the signs were probably put up several years ago, whereas I'd be driving on the road 'here and now' and am able to take account for the conditions of the road, weather, traffic etc at the moment I'm driving on it.

Sadly many people seem unable to gauge this sort of stuff so that's why variable speed limits are a good idea. For motorways it would be nice to see these limits raised at times when the roads are quiet conditions good. 90mph feels about right during these times.

Assuming everything important is actually in view of course.. you don't know what's out of your vision do you?

But that's why you drive to allow for what you can't see for heavens sake. It's not rocket science! A fundamental principle of advanced driving is to be able to safely stop on your own side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear.

You replied while I was typing:

you can get a pretty accurate assessment of the possible hazards on any given stretch of road by using good observation and anticipation skills so not sure why accident history matters really?

Because the reason the road is limited may be precisely because there are hazards on it that are [i]not[/i] readily avoided with good observation and anticipation skills.

You are not infallible. Chances are some of the drivers that have crashed on that road would have rated their observation and anticipation skills as highly as you do yours.

Even if you do believe you are infallible, the other drivers on that road are not.

Because the reason the road is limited may be precisely because there are hazards on it that are not readily avoided with good observation and anticipation skills.

Oh go on then, what are those likely to be then?

Even if you do believe you are infallible, the other drivers on that road are not.

Where did I say I was infallible? That's certainly not the case.

Oh go on then, what are those likely to be then?
...
Where did I say I was infallible? That's certainly not the case.

Make up your mind: are you infallible or are there things that even you sometimes miss?

molgrips - Member

Two reasons why you're wrong:

1) You don't seem to understand how our brains perceive speed. As makecoldplayhistory says, that perception is pretty fluid based on lots of factors. If you are in a quieter car, it might seem like you are going slower. But when it matters, you'll realise that it was an illusion. Likewise driving around at 70mph on a motorway can seem nice and easy and steady, but when something happens you realise 70mph is quite quick. Try it out next time you go to Germany - do 120mph for an hour or two then slow to 70, it'll seem like you've almost stopped.

That just makes you one of the crap ones.
Take away the speedo and most people would drive slower. The people that couldn't select a safe speed wouldn't pass the test.

2) There are other people on the road besides you. You might be able to control your car at 80mph, but if you were a cyclist pulling out of an awkward junction and a car comes over that crest at 80, you'd be happy with that?

Why would you approach a junction or crest at higher speeds? You'd slow down to a suitable speed.
What is that speed?
You can't answer, your speedo is redundant.

Drivers are expected to continuously pick suitable speeds to drive at, and they do. Almost all of your driving is done under the limit. 💡

Driving is a social activity.

Pretty unsocial if you ask me, but then [stwsmugmode] I don't drive [/stwsmugmode], so I'm not part of the problem. 8)

Just telemetry the cars, people with nothing to hide and all that .No need for cameras insurance companies can see throught bobbins mileage estimates and actually base premiums on real world data ,not made up shit to get cheper insurance , speed cameras become obsolete overnight

Drivers are expected to continuously pick suitable speeds to drive at, and they do.

So where you live, all drivers are competent and highly skilled?

My arse.

[url= https://www.google.co.uk/maps/ @51.5178319,-3.1420737,3a,75y,196.01h,87.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJPY1Rqo1joNU6Zyj-4k8Zw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656]What speed limit should this be?[/url]

What speed limit should this be?

no one else knows either as there's not a single car on the road when you zoom out

I'm quite willing to bet that there are plenty of "advanced drivers" on here who would be perfectly happy to exceed the speed limit by that much on an unknown road.

So where you live, all drivers are competent and highly skilled?

So where you live, all drivers spontaneously appear in front of you without warning. Where do you live, Gallifrey?

What speed limit should this be?

What should it be, or what do I think it is?

In the absence of signage in that image I'd say it's probably a 30mph going off the street lamp spacing.

What should it be? Hard to tell from a single static image. The central reservation barrier is unusual, presumably it's there for a reason. Ditto the armco. Plus, y'know, you wouldn't be using it as an example if you thought it should be a 70mph zone. So I'd say that's a high bridge or something similar with exceptional consequences if you were to leave the carriageway, and 30mph is probably correct. But like I say, that's just based off the information in one image, and not actually driving.

Just telemetry the cars, people with nothing to hide and all that.

Telemetry simply can't tell 100% if you're a good and safe driver or not. For example my great aunt (sadly deceased) rarely used to exceed 20mph. Yet she was a nightmare on the road, poor observation, pulling out infront of people, distracted by her phone, holding others up, you get the picture. A one woman havoc machine at well below the speed limit - yet her insurance probably would have been cheap under telemetry.

Consequently someone who uses the full performance of their vehicle to safely merge on a motorway slipway would probably face increased premium's? Go figure!

So where you live, all drivers spontaneously appear in front of you without warning. Where do you live, Gallifrey?

That stretch of road links the suburbs (and the M4 as it happens) with town. So there are lots of people who just drive around town and are too scared to go on motorways attempting to merge on the slip roads. The standard of merging is shocking - most people just don't look.

It used to be 70, and they changed it to 50 which it should've been imo. There were loads of accidents on it, some bad, some minor. Probably because of the stupid merging behaviour. a) You can't know all that just by looking, and b) it's near houses, suburban, and only about 3 miles long so a 70mph limit is pretty damn pointless saving as it would barely a minute. It'd save fuel if nothing else if everyone stuck to it.

So where you live, all drivers spontaneously appear in front of you without warning. Where do you live, Gallifrey?

Never come across a blind entrance? Or just never noticed them? 😉

Yeah yeah telemetry is no good funnily they can tell exactly what is happening with any sensor on a car couple that with GPS and we'll he said she said arguments go out the window

Really the white lines at the end of a slip road onto a motorway mean give way not accelerate as hard as you can hoping to barge your way into 50-70mph traffic ,

Yeah yeah telemetry is no good funnily they can tell exactly what is happening with any sensor on a car couple that with GPS and we'll he said she said arguments go out the window

Sure it can tell if you exceed the speed limit on any stretch of road even if you're doing so with a reasonable degree of safely?

But can the sensors tell if you're drunk, distracted, on your phone, texting, shouting at the kids in the back, tailgating, using inappropriate lane discipline etc, etc? Can it tell you've inflated your tyres to the correct pressures, can it tell if you've de-iced your car properly in winter, can it tell if you've failed to switch on your lights in poor visibility, can it tell if you've caused someone else to swerve, brake hard etc etc?

It used to be 70, and they changed it to 50 which it should've been imo.

Ah, a double bluff! Damn you.

You're right of course, you can't tell all that from a picture, it's static and in any case only tells you about road conditions at the time it was taken (I said as much myself). In the absence of any other information I'd be treating that road with caution for reasons as I mentioned, and treating merging traffic with the inherent distrust I'd generally afford towards merging traffic.

What it [i]used [/i]to be is irrelevant of course, but I'm surprised it was ever a 70.

Really the white lines at the end of a slip road onto a motorway mean give way not accelerate as hard as you can hoping to barge your way into 50-70mph traffic ,

It's a lot easier to merge there if you're already doing 70 rather than 40. Accelerating's exactly what they should be doing.

What speed limit should this be? ...
It used to be 70, and they changed it to 50 which it should've been imo.

Interesting. Based off that picture alone I'd have assumed it was a 60 limit (those concrete armcos look temporary so I didn't think they'd count as a central reservation, which [url= http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/1/made#tgp1-tbl1-tbd1-tr17-tc2 ]requires permanent work[/url] or land).

Zooming out a bit and looking at the presence of multiple junctions with short slips I can see why it might be a 50, but as said it's hard to tell from static images.

Really the white lines at the end of a slip road onto a motorway mean give way

If you were to fully give way and come to a stop at one of those then you'd need to wait for a hell of a gap before you could pull out safely from stationary and mean time the slip road would be full of other cars stuck behind you.

Never come across a blind entrance? Or just never noticed them?

You often get are entrances which are difficult to see, but a genuinely "blind" entrance is comparatively rare. Nothing's actually invisible.

Concealed entrances might be so because they're obscured by a corner or a dip say, but if you're driving to the conditions then you can stop in the distance you can see so in that case it shouldn't matter.

Or they might just be hard to see, gaps in hedgerows maybe. But there can be other tells, tyre tracks, tractor muck, dropped kerbs and so forth. Hell, sometimes they even put signs up. It's all about looking around for information rather than staring into the middle distance.

A perfect driver should see these "blind" entrances, and shouldn't get caught out. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm perfect or never make mistakes (though I'd like to think I'm considerably more skilled than those ****ers who drive absolutely everywhere at 40mph). I've been driving since the early 90s and I still consider it to be a continual improvement programme. Every little trick you pick up, every nuance you learn makes you a better (and thus safer) driver.

Sure it can tell if you exceed the speed limit on any stretch of road even if you're doing so with a reasonable degree of safely?

But can the sensors tell if you're drunk, distracted, on your phone, texting, shouting at the kids in the back, tailgating, using inappropriate lane discipline etc, etc?

As per the RRCGB stats earlier, exceeding the speed limit is recorded as a contributing factor in 16% of fatal accidents.

Are you saying we shouldn't tackle that factor just because there are other (smaller) contributing factors that are harder to tackle?

As per the RRCGB stats earlier, exceeding the speed limit is recorded as a contributing factor in 16% of fatal accidents.

Are you saying we shouldn't tackle that factor just because there are other (smaller) contributing factors that are harder to tackle?

A contributing factor or the only factor?

The focus on speeding (controlled by camera) means that people are now fixated on speed being the primary measure of a safe driver. That's bullpoop of course. I'd actually put good observation skills way, way above sticking within the posted speed limit as the mark of a good, safe driver.

I'd actually put good observation skills way, way above sticking within the posted speed limit as the mark of a good, safe driver.

A contributing factor or the only factor?

Contributing. I've been careful to state that. Exceeding the speed limit on its own doesn't kill you. Obviously.

But it is recorded as a contributing factor in more fatals than [i]"drunk, distracted, on your phone, texting, shouting at the kids in the back, tailgating, using inappropriate lane discipline"[/i] are.

I'd actually put good observation skills way, way above sticking within the posted speed limit as the mark of a good, safe driver

The stats would agree with that.

"Driver/Rider failed to look properly" is a factor in 24% of fatals, and "Driver/Rider failed to judge other person's path or speed" is a factor in 13% of fatals.

But it's a lot hard to detect and police those things and doesn't mean we shouldn't enforce the factors that are easier to police.

Likewise I'm sure you don't object to drink/driving restrictions being enforced, even though alcohol is "only" recorded as a factor in 9% of fatal accidents.

The focus on speeding (controlled by camera) means that people are now fixated on speed being the primary measure of a safe driver.

You're pressing on with the wrong argument.

No-one is saying that it's the primary measure of a safe driver. Everyone's admitting that you need to be attentive and all the rest of it. All the things you are.

[b]I'm simply arguing that you should not be able to drive as fast as you want. Because it'll be abused, people will make mistakes, and it'll make it harder to work together safely.[/b]

But it's a lot hard to detect and police those things and doesn't mean we shouldn't enforce the factors that are easier to police.

Yes but the over zealous enforcement of speed, and the reliance of camera enforcement rather than actual police enforcement has lead to an awful lot of resource being diverted in this direction, probably to the detriment of other areas of road safety. You only have to look at the number of people engrossed in their phones these days when they should be looking at the road ahead to prove that. Thanks to the focus on speed and cameras, people using phones whilst they drive know there's almost no chance they'll ever get caught (provided they stick to the speed limits of course) 😉

It's the same situation with tailgating, lane hogging, general aggressive driving, VED avoidance, lack of insurance etc, etc - all allowed to happen because of the reliance on cameras and the focus on speed.

So you speed, break the laws and offset the offence with diatribe justifying the cause ....nice

But can the sensors tell if you're drunk, distracted, on your phone, texting, shouting at the kids in the back, tailgating, using inappropriate lane discipline etc, etc? Can it tell you've inflated your tyres to the correct pressures, can it tell if you've de-iced your car properly in winter, can it tell if you've failed to switch on your lights in poor visibility, can it tell if you've caused someone else to swerve, brake hard etc etc?

you do know all the stuff you mentioned exists already right? they could maje the car so unless certain conditions are met or observed you cant do nuttin Rules based, now let me think what popular little book is rules based, ooooh its the highway code

of course judging by this

I frequently and intentionally travel quickly, but at a speed suitable for the conditions. I'm aware 100% of the time what speed I'm traveling at and match any increase in speed with a suitable increase in observation, awareness and an allowance for the actions of others.

your excuses for not liking the sound of being watched are So you can speed, break the laws and offset the offence with diatribe justifying the cause ....nice

Phil, nope not at all, just trying to say that extra training can make you a safer driver whatever speed you travel at.

the reliance of camera enforcement rather than actual police enforcement has lead to an awful lot of resource being diverted in this direction

I thought one of the objections to speed cameras was that they were just there to make money?

Doesn't that mean they are [i]generating[/i] resources for the police, not consuming them?

Yes but the over zealous enforcement of speed

Given how people drive it's barely enforced at all. People speed almost everywhere and get the odd ticket if they are unlucky.

I frequently and intentionally travel quickly, but at a speed suitable for the conditions.

Do you not wonder what happens when OTHER people, who aren't driving gods, misjudge your speed because it's unexpectedly high?

agent007 - Member
Phil, nope not at all, just trying to say that extra training can make you a safer driver whatever speed you travel at.
POSTED 40 MINUTES AGO #

Does that training not point out that just cos you can doesn't mean you should?

One thing people who argue that they are safe to be over the limit don't seem to understand is that other road users might not realise you are speeding and act as if you were doing the speed limit. So pulling out of a blind junction, merging off slip roads, walking across a pedestrian crossing, kids running out into the road because at a quick glance they saw the car was far away. Of course they shouldn't be assuming, but we all know some people do. I don't understand how 'as a skilled driver' you can just choose to ignore this pretty obvious fact and add danger to the situation by going quicker when other people are around (not talking about empty motorway at night here are we). No amount of situation awareness can help you react when your going faster then the other person thinks and they do something stupid un-announced.

Hurrah for motoring threads on STW, always a perfect detector...

Do you not wonder what happens when OTHER people, who aren't driving gods, misjudge your speed because it's unexpectedly high?

Yes that's something you should and I do make allowance for. There's times and places where it's perfectly safe to drive quickly on the road. There's times and places where it isn't, and in an area where it's likely that another motorist could be easily surprised by a fast moving vehicle then it would be prudent to reduce your speed accordingly.

I'm simply arguing that you should not be able to drive as fast as you want. Because it'll be abused, people will make mistakes, and it'll make it harder to work together safely.

And I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that.

No amount of situation awareness can help you react when your going faster then the other person thinks and they do something stupid un-announced.

If you default to the approach that this is going to happen, then the unexpected diminishes.

You can still mess up, of course, but few things are really truly unpredictable.

There's times and places where it's perfectly safe to drive quickly on the road.

Speed, first & foremost, should always be within the posted limit. Secondly it should be appropriate to the conditions.

Anything else is BS.

There's times and places where it's perfectly safe to drive a bit pissed on the road too.

There's times and places where it's perfectly safe to drive a bit pissed on the road too

[img] [/img]

Because, if you weren't sure, it really isn't. EVER.

Speed, first and foremost, should always be within the posted limit

Have you ever exceeded the limit?

Legally then yes of course, but it can be perfectly safe at times (not legal but safe) given the right level of skill, an appropriate vehicle and favorable weather/traffic conditions to exceed the posted limit without putting anyone else in danger.

Because, if you weren't sure, it really isn't. EVER.

I think that's what they call an analogy.

Speed, first & foremost, should always be within the posted limit. Secondly it should be appropriate to the conditions.

Aaand we've gone full circle.

You've got that arse-backwards. Speed should be appropriate for the conditions, period.

Speed limits exist - and [i]must [/i]exist - because a large number of drivers are unable to reliably and safely make that decision; so we stick a big number on a pole to slow them down. If everyone could be relied on to judge what a safe speed is (truly rather than what they think), there would be no need for speed limits.

Have you ever exceeded the limit?

Legally then yes of course, but it can be perfectly safe at times (not legal but safe) given the right level of skill, an appropriate vehicle and favourable weather/traffic conditions to exceed the posted limit without putting anyone else in danger.

It's illegal.

That's really the end of the argument. It's also reckless, dangerous, selfish & stupid with potential consequences far outweighing any gains.

If you want to go fast, find a track. You've no right to exceed the limits on a public highway.

I don't care what you say - don't put my life or anyone else's in danger. You don't have that right.

Do I really have to point this kind of thing out?

On a cycling forum where on a regular basis we talk about how unfair sentencing is for motorists who've injured/killed/maimed other road users are we really having a conversation about how "it's ok, if you don't get caught....etc...."

I bloody hope not....

Speed should be appropriate for the conditions, period.

So, following your logic.....it's ok to break the speed limit if there's nobody around ?

Sorry, I must have missed that section of the Highway Code. Care to point it out to me?

Every time this comes up someone seems to suggest that it's a choice between driving above the speed limit or driving drunk, stoned, tired, angry, blind and upside down.

It's perfectly possible to apply the "advanced" observation techniques while driving within the speed limit. A very attentive driver going above the limit MIGHT be safer than a dopey driver traveling at or below the limit but the speeding driver is more dangerous than if he wasn't speeding.

You don't have to be breaking the speed limit in order to pay proper attention. Stop acting like you're doing everyone a favour by speeding. Just admit you like driving fast and that the extra risk you subject yourself and other road users to, compared to obeying the law, is worth it for the thrill/convenience of speed.