[Closed] Traffic Cameras - why not?

They can. But, if you believe it's a moral imperative that people with greater skills or better cars must only use that capability to reduce their risk, rather than hedging that reduced risk factor against an incresed risk elsewhere... then how can you excuse other drivers who drive less capable cars or don't have the same level of driving skills, and who therefore chooses to increase their risk factors over the skilled driver-good car-same speed guy?

I wasn't aiming at some moral imperative, I was trying to debate with 007 that being skilled does not make your risk constant regardless of speed. I dont actually have a problem with him going faster if he chooses, I just wanted him to realise (accept?) that his choice of action does have an increased risk, which he doesn't think is correct.

Regarding actions of others, well obviously its difficult even to persuade friends and relatives to do more than the minimum required nevermind strangers.

Now, replay the scenario but increase my speed so that my risk factors overall are identical. Why is it morally wrong to be exactly as unsafe as the other guy was? Why, when we were both going at the same speed, was it OK for him to be less safe? All other things being equal, the decision to go faster is basically having the same effect as the decision to fit shit tyres

Certainly a challenging one if you play out all the options. But basically if you take that at face value your treating it as a race to the bottom. 'That guy didn't try to not kill someone so why should I?' . Morals are always a hard one to juggle, if you dont know the tyres are crap then you probably think you did what you could. If you knew you fitted great tyres but threw away that benefit by driving faster can you really feel happy with yourslelf just because someone else didn't try better?

dazh - Member

Haven't read the rest of the thread, has it got to the point where the pro-speeders are denying the laws of physics?

I also haven't read the rest of the thread, but I'd wager that no-one can be trusted to choose their own speed safely except molgrips. 🙂

In a motoring utopia I'd be in favour of not needing speed limits because everyone was capable of choosing a sensible and appropriate speed.

...

After the discussion here I'm also in favour of better signage to better empower drivers to make educated judgement calls in order to dispel this "ah but you don't know what happened here on a dark night twenty years ago" argument.

[img] [/img]

What could go wrong? 😉

Haven't read the rest of the thread, has it got to the point where the pro-speeders are denying the laws of physics?

Not quite, but they are desperately clinging to the mantra that advanced driving skills give them the right to break the speed limit at a time of & place of their choosing, rather than stay within the speed limit & use advance driving skills to be safer & more considerate drivers.

All a bit sad really.

One of the ideas that doesn't get aired much in this is non-linear deceleration as part of the braking distance. No matter how focused you are and how efficiently you stick the brake on, most of the actual slowing of the car happens in the final couple of metres of braking. I saw one graph which calculated that even a marginal difference in opening speed, say 32 mph versus 29 meant hitting the 'running out kid' at about 15mph more, the difference between minor injuries and life-changing ones, or death.

It's a manufactured scenario, sure, and you can't manage out the risks of hitting someone completely, no matter how careful you are, but that little nugget has certainly made me very conscious of keeping speed perhaps even lower than I normally would in residential streets and around town.

Equally you could argue I pay more attention and my concentration and observation are markedly sharper when I travel faster so there's a reduced risk there. My attention is solely focused on driving. I wish it could be the case that it's possible to have this heightened sense of concentration when trundling along in a queue of traffic at well below the limit, but sadly like everyone else I'm human and occasionally in this situation my mind wanders.

That's a good point, driving is dull and attention can wane. As someone said earlier modern cars make driving easy and if you drive fast (autobarn was mentioned) this can make driving slow even worse, its like going at snail speed. I wonder how much that affects things too?

Not quite, but they are desperately clinging to the mantra that advanced driving skills give them the right to break the speed limit at a time of & place of their choosing

I'm guessing they must have heightened senses and reaction times when they go faster? 😀

Some light relief. Watch this informative video. How many of these situations would have been made [i]safer[/i] by the drivers going faster?

I'm thinking particularly of the incidents starting at:
0:10, 0:22, 0:45, 0:51, 1:00, 1:50, 2:11, 3:12, 4:30

I'm not denying that a bit of observation would have helped in a lot of cases too!! 😆

(Also this video demonstrates why dashcams are a great idea - they are very entertaining!)

I saw one graph which calculated that even a marginal difference in opening speed, say 32 mph versus 29 meant hitting the 'running out kid' at about 15mph more, the difference between minor injuries and life-changing ones, or death.

+1.

I've heard this too.

One of the ideas that doesn't get aired much in this is non-linear deceleration as part of the braking distance. No matter how focused you are and how efficiently you stick the brake on, most of the actual slowing of the car happens in the final couple of metres of braking. I saw one graph which calculated that even a marginal difference in opening speed, say 32 mph versus 29 meant hitting the 'running out kid' at about 15mph more, the difference between minor injuries and life-changing ones, or death

The main reason for this is that people don't appreciate that brakes remove the kinetic energy from a car. The best theoretical example of this is to ask the question "if two identical cars one travelling at 100mph and one travelling at 70mph apply their brakes to the maximum the tyres will allow, what speed with the first car (the one that a started at 100 mph) be doing when the second one comes to a stop?" Most people instinctively reply 30 mph whereas the correct answer is 70 mph.

It's a little bit "spherical chickens in a vacuum" but it does demonstrate the point.

A suitably trained driver will pick a similar speed to another suitably trained driver.

Oh yeah? Got a citation for that, or did you pull it out of your arse?

aracer > interesting reading, thanks.

I wonder how many calling for re-testing every 10 years have had a lesson in the last 10 years

I don't believe there would be any benefit to me personally having a regular prepare-for-test driving lesson. I'd sincerely hope that's true of most people here.

I went on a speed awareness course (ah, irony!) a few years back though. I've often thought of getting advanced lessons, I emailed the IAM once but never got a reply back. That's probably a good topic for another conversation, recommended courses.

Oh, I do keep up to date with THC though, so that I can [s]point-score in Internet arguments[/s] keep up to date with any changes.

Have any of the speeders addressed the 'consistency' argument yet?

The ones who expressed an opinion (myself included) agreed with you. Are you just looking for someone to disagree with you?

Equally you could argue I pay more attention and my concentration and observation are markedly sharper when I travel faster so there's a reduced risk there. My attention is solely focused on driving. I wish it could be the case that it's possible to have this heightened sense of concentration when trundling along in a queue of traffic at well below the limit, but sadly like everyone else I'm human and occasionally in this situation my mind wanders.

There was a documentary on TV a few years back about habitual speeders, and they demonstrated this phenomenon. I remember in particular a black cab driver (that is, a driver in a black cab) who went to custard when forced to drive below the speed limits. He was faffing about with the accessories controls and generally paying no attention to what he was doing. I can't remember what the conclusion of the show was though.

For me, if I've spare brain capacity I'll do the speedo game thing I mentioned earlier or use it to give myself a running commentary of what I can see (like, "name the hazards" or something). I found I learned a lot when I started to do it, you start to properly see a lot more of your surroundings when you're actively going "ball in road, is a child about to run in the road after it?" It's good brain training to get this sort of thing automated.

What could go wrong?

Hah, ace.

Point was more "accident blackspot," or "hidden entrance" or some such. You know, all this hidden knowledge you were on about. Why keep it hidden?

We already do this signposting to an extent of course (rendering the argument moot), but it's certainly not something I'd trust to be reliable (ie, assuming that unlabelled roads must be "safe"). Signs go missing and you can't signpost for something like a lorry with a spilled load. But if this insider knowledge is so critical, get it out in the open.

I suppose this is tied up in part with people trusting signs and limits. Folk drive through deserted road works at night which have been speed-restricted to protect workers. No workers, why's there a limit? There might well be a good reason; workers nearby but not immediately visible perhaps, I saw one once where people were working under the bridge that the traffic was on, so not visibly working but still needing a speed restriction for their safety. But many people will just see that they're being held up for "no reason" and that breeds resentment and distrust, then ultimately they get into the habit of ignoring roadworks restrictions. Again this comes down to driver training really, but I'd wager that many habitual speeders would obey speed limits far more readily if they had built the trust that they are appropriate and there for good reason.

Oh yeah? Got a citation for that, or did you pull it out of your arse?

Seems plausible, if one argues that if they don't choose a similar speed then ipso facto they aren't suitably trained.

There's the 85% percentile thing too of course, which is broadly the same concept.

No workers, why's there a limit?

Well for one thing I'm sure it would be a pain in the arse to take down and put up temporary speed limit signs. It's cost money (in additional man hours) and the task of replacing the speed limits every day probably exposes the works to more risk.

It wouldn't be of much practical benefit anyway e.g. if there is a 5 mile section of road works it will take just over a minute and half longer to drive through at 50 mph than at 70 mph. Hardly a great sacrifice is it?

I wonder how many calling for re-testing every 10 years have had a lesson in the last 10 years

Me. Because I've only had my license for 9 years. 😀

[i]*awaits flames for not being a proper driver*[/i]

You know, all this hidden knowledge you were on about. Why keep it hidden?

That's the point I'm making with that image. That information may be too technical or too detailed to be neatly summarised in a sign that can be read at a glance.

A much easier way is for someone with suitable qualifications to sit down and digest all the relevant information and determine a suitable maximum limit that can be communicated simply and effectively by [i]"a big number on a pole"[/i]. 😀

Have a read of the [url= http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/index.htm ]15 Volume Design Manual for Roads and Bridges[/url] or even just the relatively lightweight 116 page [url= https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/341513/pdfmanforstreets.pdf ]Manual For Streets[/url] guidance.

Then have a think about the spread of intelligence levels in the people that you want to weigh up these criteria and risk factors for themselves!

Seems plausible, if one argues that if they don't choose a similar speed then ipso facto they aren't suitably trained.

Appearing plausible is not the same as actually being true 🙂

Again this comes down to driver training really

It come down to people not being arrogant cocks thinking they know best. Which is how we got to this thread, really.

molgrips - Member

Oh yeah? Got a citation for that, or did you pull it out of your arse?

I pulled it out of my arse.
Same place I keep my IAM certificate, and (now lapsed as I'm not driving) RoSPA Gold. Oh, and my 25m.

Really don't know what you have against further training. Remember none of these organizations advocate driving in excess of the limit.
I'd like to see much harder tests to get on our roads, with much more experience needed.
Are you worried you wouldn't pass?
You don't exactly come across as a confident driver, and you continuously shun extra training whilst advocating deferring of responsibility for safety onto another party.

molgrips - Member

It come down to people not being arrogant cocks thinking they know best.

It's that lack of arrogance that has lead me to continually improve my driving by external assessment.
💡

Really don't know what you have against further training.

Nothing. Further training would be fantastic, and I think that the minimum standard should also be much higher. Your actual quote, and the one I took issue with was this:

A suitably trained driver will pick a similar speed to another suitably trained driver.

I don't think that's true. Nothing about further training or anything else. As any teacher knows, training people is one thing - what they do with the knowledge is up to them and is a lot harder to control.

You don't exactly come across as a confident driver

Perhaps that's because I'm highly aware of hazards? I'm confident, by the way, I'm just very careful. Most of the time, of course.

Well for one thing I'm sure it would be a pain in the arse to take down and put up temporary speed limit signs.

It wouldn't be of much practical benefit anyway

I don't think that's true.

"Got a citation for that, or did you pull it out of your arse?"

You're both convinced the other is wrong yet neither of you actually know.

Well for one thing I'm sure it would be a pain in the arse to take down and put up temporary speed limit signs.

[b](50)[/b]
Monday - Friday
8am - 8pm

It wouldn't be of much practical benefit anyway

I don't think that's true.

"Got a citation for that, or did you pull it out of your arse?"

You're both convinced the other is wrong yet neither of you actually know.

Must admit, lack of confidence due to being rear ended was part of the reason behind me stopping driving (as well as lack of necessity).

I'll definitely be getting some tuition before I return to the roads.

STATO - Member

I was trying to debate with 007 that being skilled does not make your risk constant regardless of speed. I dont actually have a problem with him going faster if he chooses, I just wanted him to realise (accept?) that his choice of action does have an increased risk, which he doesn't think is correct.

To be honest I think that's a misunderstanding of the argument being made. Going faster has an increased risk in isolation and I don't think anyone's disputing that, but it's part of the big cocktail of risk and it's entirely possible to increase speed risk, while decreasing it elsewhere.

Seems pretty clear to me that when people say decreased risk in this way, they mean the total combined risk, not the speed factor alone. if only because that's the only way it makes any sense.

You're both convinced the other is wrong yet neither of you actually know.

I didn't say he's wrong, I asked for evidence for him to back up his claim. If he has it, then great.

[img] [/img]

[code](50)
Monday - Friday
8am - 8pm[/code]

Seems like a reasonable approach BUT... Edinburgh has a similar approach to bus lanes: times on the sign and enforcement by camera.

[img] [/img]

According to [url= http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/edinburgh-bus-lane-fines-60k-remain-unpaid-1-3990904 ]this story in The Scotsman[/url] they issued more than 25,000 fines in a year and a similar scheme in Glasgow with more cameras "caught out" 128,633 drivers.

In the comments you see stuff like:

[i]"Many Edinburgh bus lanes are incomprehensible, and many are contradictory. It is NOT POSSIBLE while driving with due care and attention to read the times on the signs."[/i]

Yes, that sign above ^^. Incomprehensible.

I'd remind you that [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/ridiculous-real-work-emails-wtf/page/2#post-7864198 ]you work in an office where the employees apparently struggle to use a microwave despite the signs[/url] 😀 Thinking is hard. Many people don't. Signs need to be very very simple.

molgrips - Member

I didn't say he's wrong, I asked for evidence for him to back up his claim. If he has it, then great.

Go and find a load of people that have just got an A* in A level maths.
Ask them to explain Pythagoras' theorem.
You'll get the same answer.
(replace with French students and a question in French for a better analogy that's less prone to spectacularly missing the point)

Go and find a load of people that have just got an A* in A level maths.
Ask them to explain Pythagoras' theorem.
You'll get the same answer.

Ok you're being really rather ridiculous now.

No, I'm pointing out the bleeding obvious.
Train people to the same high standard, test those people to the same high standards and you'll get roughly the same results.

Driving is much more subjective than those things you mentioned.

That's why the training and testing standards need to be higher.
Much higher than they are now.

It's always going to be highly subjective due to how our brains work.

The only way you'll get people to drive in exactly the same way is to have a set of rules to abide by. Oh.............

Extensive enough education and training can overcome this.

Go on a commentated drive with a few pros, you'll see what I mean.

It really opened my eyes.

If all drivers were rational, maybe. But you can't train that into people with a few courses. And what about people who just WANT to speed? Even though they know it's not as safe?

People are a lot more complex than you seem to think.

ads678 - Member

The only way you'll get people to drive in exactly the same way is to have a set of rules to abide by. Oh.............

Just using speed limits as one example to show you that you're wrong; we're all currently expected to choose what a safe speed to drive at is within that limit, or rule.
Only with increased training will drivers become better at making that decision.

As an aside to the bickering, if we want to improve driving then we need to get serious on the punishments for bad driving. Especially repeated bad driving.

[url= http://road.cc/content/news/203741-nine-years-jail-texting-driver-who-killed-cyclist ]
This story[/url] popped up today: a van driver was still allowed on the road after EIGHT convictions for using a phone whilst driving. EIGHT FFS!

Then, just six weeks after convincing magistrates to let him keep his driving license ("hardship m'lud"), he did it again. Reading his texts whilst driving.

And this time he killed a cyclist. 🙁

And that's [i]still[/i] not enough to earn him a lifetime ban.

molgrips - Member

If all drivers were rational, maybe. But you can't train that into people with a few courses. And what about people who just WANT to speed? Even though they know it's not as safe?

People are a lot more complex than you seem to think.

Much better training and much harder testing will weed out the shit drivers.
The police are there to deal with dangerous criminals, we will always have criminals.

Much better training and much harder testing will weed out the shit drivers.
The police are there to deal with dangerous criminals, we will always have criminals.

What exactly do you call someone who kills another person like the story GrahamS has linked to?

Appalling failure of the justice there Graham.
That magistrate needs to be looked at and he is indicative of people's terrible attitudes towards driving.

gonefishin - Member

What exactly do you call someone who kills another person like the story GrahamS has linked to?

Rude words.
What is the point of having rules in place if we allow people to get away with breaking them?
He should have been banned from driving a long time ago.

Re speed limits the drivers skill in controlling a vehicle at various speeds and reaction times are small part of picture.....you also have to consider the reaction times and decision making of the other people in that environment. At 20mph everyone has more time to see and properly assess what's going on...not just the driver. Plenty out there about younger people in particular unable to assess oncoming things at speed....slower speeds give them more chance to assess what's going on...and they might not have drivers awesome skills.

The trouble with the "speed kills" propaganda is that unless cars do not comply with the basic laws of physics this statement is totally untrue. Speed never has and never can kill, no single person has ever died from going too fast.

In order for there to be an accident there have to be 2 objects wanting to occupy the same space at exactly the same time. Speed is completely irrelevant and not a factor in this scenario. Indeed it is just as probable that the accident wouldnt have occurred at all if one of the objects was travelling faster or slower.

Even rospa have had to concede that inappropriate speed is responsible for less than 10% of accidents and speeding is an undefined subset of that. It also states that 2/3rds of all fatal crashes occur in areas with a 30mph speed limit. [url= http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/drivers/speed/inappropriate/ ]Citation[/url]

The caveat to that of course is that whilst absolute speed may not cause accidents in and of itself, it can have a very great impact on the [i]severity[/i] of a collision should one occur.

Speed never has and never can kill, no single person has ever died from going too fast.

An utterly useless post. EVERYONE understands the difference between 80mph on a clear road and 80mph into a tree.

Speed is a multiplier for accidents. It makes them harder to avoid, and worse when they do happen. A collision at 30mph might be survivable, 100mph might not. So speed really does kill *in an accident*.

Much better training and much harder testing will weed out the shit drivers.

It won't do anything for the drivers good enough to drive for the test, but then willing to flout the rules afterwards. Most people knowingly flout rules now tbh.

In order for there to be an accident there have to be 2 objects wanting to occupy the same space at exactly the same time. Speed is completely irrelevant and not a factor in this scenario.

Of course it's a factor! If those two objects were doing 5mph before tried to "occupy the same space" then it won't be much of a bump. If they were doing 100mph each and hit head on then it'll make a right old mess.

Even rospa have had to concede that inappropriate speed is responsible for less than 10% of accidents and speeding is an undefined subset of that.

I'm guessing you missed the RRCGB figures posted earlier?

RAS50001 shows "Exceeding speed limit" as a contributory factor in 16% of fatal accidents and "Travelling too fast for conditions" is a factor in 11% of fatal accidents.

It also states that 2/3rds of all fatal crashes occur in areas with a 30mph speed limit.

That's not what it says. It says "killed OR INJURED" - i.e. that includes all recorded accidents including minor shunts.

The fatality figures are much clearer:

Total fatalities on all roads: 1658
Total fatalities on roads with a 20 or 30 limit: 617 (about 37.2%)

Source: RAS40003, Reported accidents and casualties by severity, road type and speed limit, RRCGB 2014

Turns out that Speed Kills. Who knew?

It won't do anything for the drivers good enough to drive for the test, but then willing to flout the rules afterwards. Most people knowingly flout rules now tbh.

That's why we need to do much more in educating driver's attitudes before they are let out on the roads.
The current system does not do this, and is too easy to pass.
My examiner was very *slack.
Fortunately my instructor wasn't.
I've always described driving as a constant series of actions to prevent one's self from crashing. It needs to be taken seriously.

*Instructed me to break the speed limit and marked me down for hesitation because I was reacting to potential hazards that he hadn't seen.
If I was to go back in time and take my test again but without the examiner, the only things I'd do differently is drive a little slower at certain points and be a little more considerate to other drivers.

Oh, and reverse around a corner a little more confidently, I was proper shite!

And what does 'contributing to an accident' actually mean? A factor in the accident happening?

Speed is a factor in the consequences of 100% of accidents.

That's why we need to do much more in educating driver's attitudes before they are let out on the roads.

Lol. Good luck with that, seriously.

Turns out that Speed Kills. Who knew?

We knew that years ago, when the "two thirds lie" was trotted out and it transpired that speeding was the primary cause in approx 4% of accidents.

it transpired that speeding was the primary cause in approx 4% of accidents.

Even so, it still kills.

molgrips - Member

Lol. Good luck with that, seriously.

I've convinced a few people to hone their skills over the years, normally after pointing out glaringly obvious hazards my passengers have missed after asking me why I was slowing down.

Every little helps.

And what does 'contributing to an accident' actually mean? A factor in the accident happening?

Yeah, on the [url= https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/230590/stats19.pdf ]STATS19 form (pdf)[/url] the investigating police office can record a up to six contributory factors (from a list of 77) that they decide are relevant to the accident.

There is [url= https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/463043/rrcgb2014-02.pdf ]a good background article about it here[/url] if you are interested (pdf).

EVERYONE understands the difference between 80mph on a clear road and 80mph into a tree.

Thought for a moment there you'd considered 80mph on a clear road to be safe 😉

Speed is a multiplier for accidents. It makes them harder to avoid

Try telling that to my ex GF. In the time I went out with her she'd had 5-6 car park accidents at no more than 5mph, yet no accidents out on the open road at higher speed!

Most people knowingly flout rules now tbh.

And yet casualty numbers seem to be reducing year on year?

it transpired that speeding was the primary cause in approx 4% of accidents.

Yes of [b]ALL[/b] accidents - because ALL accidents includes lots of pretty low speed shunts and minor injuries. (See agent007's ex-girlfriend for example).

If you look at [b]FATAL[/b] accidents, i.e. the ones that [i]kill[/i], then speeding is a contributory factor in 16% of them.

The top six contributing factors that are recorded in fatal accidents are:

Loss of control (32%)
Driver/Rider failed to look properly (25%)
Driver/Rider careless, reckless or in a hurry (18%)
Exceeding speed limit (16%)
Poor turn or manoeuvre (14%)
Driver/Rider failed to judge other person's path or speed (14%)

The same argument could be made for driving too slowly. Remember seeing a video of a car side swiped on a dual carriageway by a truck pulling out suddenly into the outside lane to avoid another car that must have been traveling at approx 40mph in the inside lane. The truck driver obviously didn't expect the car to be traveling so slowly but would be considered at fault for the accident by not being observant enough. Perhaps a minimum speed limit should also be set on some roads during good, dry conditions?

[quote=GrahamS ]If you look at FATAL accidents, i.e. the ones that kill, then speeding is a contributory factor in 16% of them.
The top five contributing factors that are recorded in fatal accidents are:
Driver/Rider failed to look properly (25%)
Driver/Rider careless, reckless or in a hurry (18%)
Exceeding speed limit (16%)
Poor turn or manoeuvre (14%)
Driver/Rider failed to judge other person's path or speed (14%)

I don't want to trivialise the importance of speed, but that still makes 84% of fatal accidents where speeding wasn't considered a factor at all. If everybody stopped speeding right now there would still be carnage on the roads.

It seems there are other factors there which might merit a higher priority rather than just focusing on speed because it's easy to measure.

And yet casualty numbers seem to be reducing year on year?

Most likely more to do with cars being safer.

What's your reasoning?

Try telling that to my ex GF

That's very small number of total incidents/accidents & hardly representative.

It seems there are other factors there which might merit a higher priority rather than just focusing on speed because it's easy to measure.

Agree 100%, yet all people seem to be obsessed about (including most on here) is speed, speed, speed! Such a shame that this very vocal, yet narrow minded focus on speed is distracting people's attention from where the main improvements in driving safety can be found, probably costing 100's of lives in the process.

The truck driver obviously didn't expect the car to be traveling so slowly but would be considered at fault for the accident by not being observant enough.

Sounds like that we be recorded as "Driver/Rider failed to look properly" and "Driver/Rider failed to judge other person's path or speed".

If the car was doing 40mph then the truck (assuming an HGV) should only have had a 10mph closing speed, or maybe 20mph (if it happened in England or Wales after [url= https://movingon.blog.gov.uk/reminder-hgv-speed-limit-changes-in-england-and-wales/ ]April last year[/url]).

The driver should have had plenty of time to see the slower car.

Perhaps a minimum speed limit should also be set on some roads during good, dry conditions?

Effectively banning groups of road users including cyclists, horses, mopeds, tractors, etc?

I don't want to trivialise the importance of speed, but that still makes 84% of fatal accidents where speeding wasn't considered a factor at all.

Well I'd note that some of the other top factors would have speed-related components too, even if speeding wasn't cited as a factor (and it may have been - the factors are not exclusive).

It seems there are other factors there which might merit a higher priority rather than just focusing on speed because it's easy to measure.

From those figures there are three factors (out of 77 possible) that are recorded more often than speeding in fatals.

And of those the top two, "Loss of control" and "Driver/Rider failed to look properly" are pretty hard to legislate against.

Perhaps a minimum speed limit should also be set on some roads during good, dry conditions?

IIRC the motorways have a minimum [i]capable[/i] speed. I forget the figure, but your vehicle has be capable of a minimum speed to be allowed on the motorway. (It's something like 30mph or 40mph I think.)

A minimum speed would be difficult to enforce. What if there's heavy traffic or a jam / accident? There are minimum limits somewhere presumably, the signs are in THC (they're blue circles). I don't recall ever seeing one in the flesh though. Anyone else seen one? And we have clearways too of course, but that's not really the same thing.

I'm pretty sure it's 40mph on a motorway.

Speeding is tackled precisely as it is easy to judge. In my industry it's called the quick win. Cost or effort is minimal for maximum return, in this case trying to have 14% less dead people. You don't think it's worth the effort?

The more common contributors are clearly judgement based, and as such are harder to control. We could be having tv adverts or some such, cost would be little, effect likely also. Get some celebs on the case and it might work a bit better. Generally though behaviour is slow to change without a penalty to drive it, and those ones are difficult to do that.

yet all people seem to be obsessed about (including most on here) is speed, speed, speed!

NO WE AREN'T! I've said over and over again on every thread that good driving is essential. I've just said that speed limits are also important.

It's almost as if you lot deliberately don't listen so that you'll have a bogus argument to cling to! FFS!

The reason we keep talking about it is that half of STW think it's ok to ignore speed limits, and I'm trying to tell you why sticking to them has value. Yet for some stupid reason you think I'm saying it's the only thing that's important despite explicitly stating over and over again to the contrary.

There are minimum limits somewhere presumably, the signs are in THC (they're blue circles). I don't recall ever seeing one in the flesh though. Anyone else seen one?

Only in tunnels.
e.g. 10mph in the Liverpool tunnel https://goo.gl/maps/rVorwkfcMJR2

Incidentally I had a quick look for legislation on minimum capable speed, but the only thing that I found was the [url= http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66 ]Highways Act[/url] (SCHEDULE 4 Classes of Traffic for Purposes of Special Roads) which says a Class I vehicle [i]"in the case of a motor vehicle, that it is so constructed as to be capable of attaining a speed of 25 miles per hour on the level under its own power, when unladen and not drawing a trailer."[/i]

NO WE AREN'T!

Indeed.

Speed and speeding just keeps getting mentioned because:

a) the thread was about speed cameras
b) people keep popping up saying speed doesn't matter or quoting bogus stats.

Speed matters. Plenty of other factors matter too. I've said I'm all for periodic re-tests, better enforcement technology, more traffic police, harsher sentencing and more lifetime bans.

There's no such thing as a minimum speed limit on the motorway.

NO WE AREN'T! I've said over and over again on every thread that good driving is essential. I've just said that speed limits are also important.
It's almost as if you lot deliberately don't listen so that you'll have a bogus argument to cling to! FFS!
The reason we keep talking about it is that half of STW think it's ok to ignore speed limits, and I'm trying to tell you why sticking to them has value. Yet for some stupid reason you think I'm saying it's the only thing that's important despite explicitly stating over and over again to the contrary.

+1.

Speed is a relatively easy factor to control hence the emphasis.

Everything else requires more action on the driver I.e. more training = extra expense & time.

Speed just requires you not to press that pedal on the right quite so hard & far.

It's almost as if you lot deliberately don't listen so that you'll have a bogus argument to cling to! FFS!

Irritating, isn't it.

The reason we keep talking about it is that half of STW think it's ok to ignore speed limits,

[citation needed] unless STW is two people.

Try telling that to my ex GF. In the time I went out with her she'd had 5-6 car park accidents at no more than 5mph, yet no accidents out on the open road at higher speed!

Genuine question. Do you think she would have had fewer crashes or that they would have done less damage if she drove faster in car parks?

Speed is a multiplier for accidents. It makes them harder to avoid, and worse when they do happen. A collision at 30mph might be survivable, 100mph might not. So speed really does kill *in an accident*.

Your missing the whole point. You are talking about the severity of the accident. Im more interested in them not happening at all. In that context speed is irrelevant, the accident will or won't happen irrespective of the speed.

An utterly useless post. EVERYONE understands the difference between 80mph on a clear road and 80mph into a tree.

Indeed they do. So in 1 scenario nothing happened, in the other there was an accident. The speed was the same in both scenarios so not a facto, the accident was caused by hitting the tree. The speed was irrelevant.

If you want to get hung up about survivability rather than preventing accidents then fine. Survivability is all about managing the transfer of kinetic energy to other forms of energy, its actually all about how you slow down. As its about energy then weight is as important as speed. A 40 tonne lorry doing 30mph has a hell of a lot more kinetic energy to get rid of than at car.

Your missing the whole point. You are talking about the severity of the accident. Im more interested in them not happening at all.

I would say that you are missing the point. Ideally we should not have accidents at all, but some are inevitable. When they do happen, their consequences should be minimised.

I'd rather have twenty minor bumps than one big smash. Survivability is very important indeed!

A 40 tonne lorry doing 30mph has a hell of a lot more kinetic energy to get rid of than at car.

Yep. Maybe they should have some sort of law that limits how fast vehicles can go and make it slower for big heavy ones....

If you want to get hung up about survivability rather than preventing accidents then fine.

GAAAH ARE YOU NOT LISTENING?!!

BOTH
BOTH
BOTH

ARGH!

You are talking about the severity of the accident. Im more interested in them not happening at all. In that context speed is irrelevant, the accident will or won't happen irrespective of the speed.

No, speed is still highly relevant as it determines pretty basic things like how much time you have to react to a developing hazard and how likely you are to be able to avoid it.

If speed was irrelevant in the contex of accidents happening then someone doing 200mph through a busy residential street would be no more likely to crash than someone doing 20mph. Do you believe that to be true?!?

A 40 tonne lorry doing 30mph has a hell of a lot more kinetic energy to get rid of than at car.

Indeed, but do you know what has even more kinetic energy than that? A 40 tonne lorry doing 60mph!

GrahamS - Member

[i]There are minimum limits somewhere presumably, the signs are in THC (they're blue circles). I don't recall ever seeing one in the flesh though. Anyone else seen one?[/i]

Only in tunnels.
e.g. 10mph in the Liverpool tunnel https://goo.gl/maps/rVorwkfcMJR2

Graham that's the Kingsway/New/Wallasey tunnel (opened 1971 by the Queen)
the other is the Queensway/Old/Birkenhead tunnel (opened in 1934 by the King)

Neither is called the Liverpool Tunnel, after over 5000 trips through a combination of both it starts to wear thin 😉
Sorry for being a statto
There used to be a sign saying no headlights in the tunnels but once cars started to have auto headlights they struck that off, you still get flashed if you turn your lights off in the tunnel by other motorists during the night despite the lighting being the same night or day!

Neither is called the Liverpool Tunnel, after over 5000 trips through a combination of both it starts to wear thin
Sorry for being a statto

No worries. I [i]sort of l[/i] knew that as the missus grew up on the Wirral and her folks still live there.

[quote=GrahamS ]Well I'd note that some of the other top factors would have speed-related components too, even if speeding wasn't cited as a factor (and it may have been - the factors are not exclusive).

Do they? You're going to have to explain how those factors mean that the driver was speeding and yet the policeman chose not to put that down as a factor (the factors not being exclusive makes it less likely that the driver was speeding despite not being reported as a factor rather than more).

Of course such reasoning is how we got to that discredited 2/3 figure which used to be quoted - I can't quite remember what factors they had to include to get that, but there were some quite ridiculous ones.

From those figures there are three factors (out of 77 possible) that are recorded more often than speeding in fatals.
And of those the top two, "Loss of control" and "Driver/Rider failed to look properly" are pretty hard to legislate against.

Plenty which aren't that hard to enforce (we're not talking about new legislation, we already have enough of that). 76 of them not speeding, I'm sure if you combined a few of those you could come up with way more than 16% - it doesn't really matter if some of them aren't in the top 3, we know that we've still got 84% left (even excluding those where there was another factor than speeding, without which the speeding would have been safe - which is the majority of that 16% IMHO).

[quote=STATO ]Speeding is tackled precisely as it is easy to judge. In my industry it's called the quick win. Cost or effort is minimal for maximum return, in this case trying to have 14% less dead people. You don't think it's worth the effort?

I think that the excessive emphasis on speed tends to reduce the emphasis on other more important factors (and give the impression to stupid drivers that they're not that important). It's certainly not a given that the current policies result in less deaths when even if reducing speeding is 100% effective you only need to reduce other factors by 20% to have just as much benefit.

As discussed in another current thread, sorting out the penal system so that people get properly discouraged from unsafe behaviour could have a significant benefit.

Don't get the idea I'm pro speeding and that it's an acceptable thing to do, simply that I don't believe the focus on improving road safety is necessarily correct.

Do they? You're going to have to explain how those factors mean that the driver was speeding and yet the policeman chose not to put that down as a factor (the factors not being exclusive makes it less likely that the driver was speeding despite not being reported as a factor rather than more).

If I* was responsible for a crash, I'd be much more likely to say "my car just seemed to take on a life of its own" or "it came out of nowhere" / "I just didn't see it" or "I was blinded by the morning sun" than "**** me, I was really shifting when it pulled out". That emphasises inattention or loss of control over speeding, though I do think it's often both that are required (not necessarily from the same driver)

* I'd like to say I wouldn't do this and that it's just "them" who would but I suspect pretty much anyone would say this, and probably even genuinely believe it

If speed was irrelevant in the contex of accidents happening then someone doing 200mph through a busy residential street would be no more likely to crash than someone doing 20mph. Do you believe that to be true?!?

Yes I do be used cars obey the laws of physics. A car travelling at 200mph is no more likely to crash than a car at 20mph.Having a crash is not related to speed, it's all about time and place, not how quickly or slowlyou you arrive at that place at that time.

Er? You might want to explain that one again. Are you talking about probabilities and statistics, and just completely missed the point that at 200mph you can't stop in the same distance.

Do they? You're going to have to explain how those factors mean that the driver was speeding and yet the policeman chose not to put that down as a factor

I said "some of the other top factors would have speed-[b]related[/b] components".

I don't mean they are aliases for speeding, I just mean that speed (legal or illegal) is still a component of some of them.

e.g. The number one contributory factor in fatalities is "Loss of control" (32%). Is it reasonable to assume that a good proportion of the drivers fatally losing control of their car were going fast at the time? Possibly even inappropriately so?

Likewise "Driver/Rider careless, reckless or in a hurry" doesn't suggest someone going slow.

And "Travelling too fast for conditions" may not be speeding, but it is still recorded as a factor in 11% of fatals.

As an aside from that, I do think that some policemen may be reluctant to put down "Exceeding speed limit" if they don't have actual evidence of that, but that's an overall problem with the STATS19 reporting and other factors suffer from that too (Mobile phone use for example) and wasn't what I was getting at.

Plenty which aren't that hard to enforce

Have a read of the list, a lot of them are [i]very[/i] hard to enforce.

As discussed in another current thread, sorting out the penal system so that people get properly discouraged from unsafe behaviour could have a significant benefit.

I've mentioned that on this thread too. I'm not blindly focussed on speed or speeding, it's just that this is a thread about speed cameras and people are discussing speeding.

[quote=scaredypants ]Guessing here (aren't we all?), but in the absence of obvious massive impacts, a copper is likely to have to rely on driver & witness statements for much of this unless they have nice visible and measurable skidmarks on a dry road or something like that.

We're talking about fatalaties here, which tend to be investigated very thoroughly. I think they're likely to have solid information in the vast majority of cases and suggesting that some drivers are speeding but not reported as such in the accident stats is idle speculation with no basis in fact. I very much doubt that much reliance is placed upon the accuracy of drivers' statements (we're not talking criminal levels of proof for these reports).