[Closed] Traffic Cameras - why not?

It's illegal.

That's really the end of the argument

Speaking as an Aspie myself, that's a very Aspie outlook. It's wrong ergo it's wrong. Binary.

Because, laws are infallible, that's why once they're set they never change ever.

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

What do you mean by "ok"? Do you mean "legal" or do you mean "safe"? If the former then no; if the latter then possibly depending on conditions, which is the entire point. If I do 71mph on a deserted motorway at 4am, is that "ok"?

I think that's what they call an analogy.

Cougars gets my logic. My point was that just because it might be relatively safe in some circumstances to speed, it doesn't follow that it should be legal everywhere at any time.

Same with driving drunk.

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.

But as discussed earlier, the people setting the limits may have access to far more information about the road than you do, especially if it is unfamiliar to you.

Assuming the "big number on a pole" is just there for other less skilful drivers is pretty arrogant.

I am more baffled in the road safety debate that rather than telemetry reporting legislation hasn't used technology available now to limit poor driver behaviour. Seat belts, abs, airbags are all mandatory, yet we have cars capable of breaking the speed limit. Why? It's not a great technological leap to me it impossible to speed by linking gps to the cars management systems. There's no real reason not to link to to variable limits as well with local broadcasting from the same motorway gantry with the sign.
Tailgating? Shouldn't be possible since we have adaptive cruise control. Driving to the conditions? We have rain sensing, temp sensing, light sensing all there already.
Sure cars would be a bit more expensive but I can't see why this isn't being pushed for as a prelude to driverless cars - use the technology available to minimise the risk, rather than dealing with the aftermath of the accident/near miss

I agree Retromud, in-car technology [i]could[/i] work to assist and enforce certain limits. I think something as simple as turning down your stereo and making an annoying noise when you speed or tailgate would get results.

But... who would buy a car with that feature?? And you'd instantly have folk posting hacked firmware and videos on YouTube to disable it.

You'd need to make it compulsory in all cars, checked at MOT and in all accidents.

I can't see why this isn't being pushed for as a prelude to driverless car

Some of it is: adaptive cruise, parking assist, automatic braking, lane departure warnings, speed warnings, auto headlights, live traffic, etc are all baby steps towards self-driving cars - but they are all steps that can be sold to punters. Restrictions are a much harder sell.

But as discussed earlier, the people setting the limits may have access to far more information about the road than you do, especially if it is unfamiliar to you.

True. But that doesn't make them appropriate, or well-considered, otherwise they'd never change.

Assuming the "big number on a pole" is just there for other less skilful drivers is pretty arrogant.

I didn't say "less skillful (than me)," I said people who aren't able to make good judgement calls. That could be a minority of drivers, or all of them including me. Point stands, we need limits only because people aren't trusted to do that.

Answer me this. If all drivers could judge speed reliably and make appropriate decisions, why would we need blanket limits?

Consistency. Traffic flow much better, and everyone knows what to expect of each other. Also, many roads are designed with certain speeds in mind.

But... who would buy a car with that feature??

No one because people NEED to be in control even if it does cost a child or an entire familys face. Safety isn't even a blot on the landscape

It would be suicidal for any company to make a car with these features mandatory unlike the cash cow which is insurance if it were compulsory like insurance to drive a car with all the safety systems in place and make it impossible to circumvent the cynic in me says they wouldn't be reducing premiums even if the accident ratio fell to zero

and people would catch the bus

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

So you're saying that you've never ever gone over the speed limit - not even by 1mph?

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

And how would that be then - by driving at a speed appropriate for the conditions, by taking extra training to improve observation, car handling and knowledge of roadcraft? By increasing my skills over and above what's required by law to give myself, my passengers and other road users a greater margin for safety?

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.

Personally I think anyone who hasn't undertaken any additional training since passing their test, to make sure that their skills are up to standard and to help keep the roads safer could be considered far more selfish. Roughly 10 years after passing my test I did my advanced course. Despite thinking I was a pretty good driver at the time, the bad habits I'd developed (some of them potentially dangerous that were ironed out in training), and the stuff that I'd previously not been aware of was eye opening to say the least!

Consistency. Traffic flow much better, and everyone knows what to expect of each other. Also, many roads are designed with certain speeds in mind.

For your first point, I wholeheartedly agree.

For your second, [citation needed].

And how would that be then

That's an interesting point actually.

If you could wave a magic wand to change one of these two things on the roads, would you,

a) ensure that everyone observed the posted speed limit

b) ensure that everyone had passed an advanced driving qualification

Which would you pick?

So you're saying that you've never ever gone over the speed limit - not even by 1mph?

What I've done is irrelevant. It's what legal that matters.

And how would that be then - by driving at a speed appropriate for the conditions, by taking extra training to improve observation, car handling and knowledge of roadcraft? By increasing my skills over and above what's required by law to give myself, my passengers and other road users a greater margin for safety?

By abiding by the posted limits which have been imposed for YOURS & MY safety. It's not hard to do. They've been placed there for a reason by folks who know more about it than certainly I & possibly you - unless you do know better?

Advanced driving skills shouldn't be used to drive faster - they should be used to drive more safely. If you can''t see that then you missed the point about having them.

What do you mean by "ok"? Do you mean "legal" or do you mean "safe"? If the former then no; if the latter then possibly depending on conditions, which is the entire point. If I do 71mph on a deserted motorway at 4am, is that "ok"?

I refer the Honourable Gentleman to my earlier reply:

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?

Answer me this. If all drivers could judge speed reliably and make appropriate decisions, why would we need blanket limits?

They can't, that's why we have them hence why obeying the speed limits is important.

It's a case of right/safe & wrong/unsafe decided by folks whose job it is to decide such things. Quite frankly, I'll trust their judgement over some keyboard Lewis Hamilton..

Answer me this. If all drivers could judge speed reliably and make appropriate decisions, why would we need blanket limits?

Because drivers don't and can't have access to all the information required to decide what the limit should be.

Yes - if drivers knew the accident history of the road and they read the accident reports; if they were aware of every aspect about the layout, potential hazards, camber and road surface; if they had access to traffic flow simulations; and they had a couple of weeks to study all this before driving on the road - [i]then[/i] maybe we wouldn't need blanket limits.

Which would you pick?

Honestly I'd like both but I'd choose (a) - purely on the basis that plenty of people can pass a qualification and then happily ignore everything they have learnt (as demonstrated by the standard driving test where in theory everyone learns the Highway Code for the test but many then completely ignore it for the rest of their driving lifetime).

More realistically I'd prefer a (c) option: compulsory re-tests at five year intervals. (Maybe ten to be practical)

[quote=Cougar ]If you could wave a magic wand to change one of these two things on the roads, would you,
a) ensure that everyone observed the posted speed limit
b) ensure that everyone had passed an advanced driving qualification
Which would you pick?
Given some of the shitty driving I've seen in cars with AIM badges that's not any sort of dilemma. I think these threads prove that passing an advanced course doesn't guarantee a higher standard of driving.

molgrips - Member

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

I wouldn't say highly skilled, but they tend to be able to drive without incident.

My arse.

Quite pert I reckon, but not as bountiful as mine. 😉

molgrips - Member

What speed limit should this be?

Looks a NSL dual carriageway, so 70.
By your metrics.

molgrips - Member

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

So we have already realised the actual problem: people that shouldn't be driving. 💡

By abiding by the posted limits which have been imposed for YOURS & MY safety. It's not hard to do. They've been placed there for a reason by folks who know more about it than certainly I & possibly you - unless you do know better?

Actually they are often pretty arbitrary. In many inner city areas during busy times of day 30mph is too fast - as recognised my the move to 20mph zones. The folk who know better increased the HGV speed limit on the A9 by 25% after it being 40mph for decades.

A local road near me had been 40mph for decades then got reduced to 30mph despite no accident history or changes in the surrounding environment. The folk who know better decided they had been wrong for years.

Often, it's not 'safety' that tops the list of factors I consider when judging my/an appropriate speed. Rather, it's the effect my speed will have on the people around me.

Example: After weekends way, etc. it's not unusual to find myself driving on empty roads, that I know well, the wrong side of midnight. Of course I could exceed the speed limits with only a vanishingly small increase in the risks posed to myself and others.

But That would mean selfishly hooning past people's houses while they try to sleep. Even obeying the speed limit would mean making noticeably more noise than driving 5 (or so) mph slower.

I don't care how safe you think you are, 30mph along my road after midnight is just ****ing selfish. I try and apply that principle to more or less everything, not just my driving.

Speed is not simply a matter of risk assessment, our behaviour affects those around us in ways we're not always aware of.

But That would mean selfishly hooning past people's houses while they try to sleep.

Haha, I don't think anyone is suggesting it's okay to 'hoon' down residential streets whatever time of the night it is.

That said, not so long ago moved to a city, for the first few weeks it all sounds very noisy but it's surprising how quickly your body gets used to it. Sleep absolutely fine now despite being within earshot of a fairly major road. Even the police helicopter when it comes out to play at night rarely wakes us up any more!

agent007 - Member

Haha, I don't think anyone is suggesting it's okay to 'hoon' down residential streets whatever time of the night it is.

You are. You said 'skilled' people can judge the safety of a road. Well someone skilled might decide its safe because everyone is asleep.

Dont try and hide behind 'residential' either, we all know there are often big wide clear roads through towns that it could be 'safe' to drive fast on but speed limits are posted to make it a better environment for nearby residents and safer to cross the road. How many links would you like to people being killed by speeding cars while crossing these types of road at night?

[url= http://www.****/news/article-2648217/Speeding-motorist-killed-cyclist-pedestrian-crossing-49mph-escapes-punishment-no-official-30mph-sign.html ]Killed crossing dual carriageway (daily mail link)[/url]. Dual carriage way so obviously road users would judge it 'safe' to speed but there is a ped-crossing and the council was reducing the speed limit. Drive got away with it as 30 signs wasn't up yet and he wasn't to know excessive speed would kill someone. So perfect example of where you should follow the limit because you dont know why its 30 until you round the corner and find the crossing.

Nice try STATO but I can't see your link because it's from the daily fail. I would argue that anyone driving through urban areas at night should be aware of the possibility of pedestrians, possible drunks in the vicinity and drive accordingly, WHATEVER the posted speed limit.

In addition to this pedestrians should also be somewhat responsible for their own safety too when crossing roads where fast moving traffic is a possibility.

You said 'skilled' people can judge the safety of a road. Well someone skilled might decide its safe because everyone is asleep.

Not all that skilled then, are they.

Actually they are often pretty arbitrary....
The folk who know better decided they had been wrong for years.

The fact that something is subject to periodic review and change doesn't mean it is arbitrary.

If they [i]didn't[/i] review them then you'd be complaining about that too!

A local road near me had been 40mph for decades then got reduced to 30mph despite no accident history or changes in the surrounding environment.

No environment changes, really? In decades? Despite [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35312562 ]the number of cars on UK roads growing at around 600,000 a year[/url] and [url= http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/uk-population/ ]the UK population growing over 5 million in the past decade[/url] alone.

And how would you know the accident history? It's rare for even fatal accidents to make the news these days.

In addition to this pedestrians should also be somewhat responsible for their own safety too when crossing roads where fast moving traffic is a possibility.

Not all that skilled then, are they.

But what if its a 30 limit, then why would they think fast moving traffic was a possibility.

Because common sense should tell you that not everyone drives at a speed appropriate to the conditions, in much the same way that not everyone crossing the road looks properly before they cross. The onus is often on both parties to look out for themselves and take suitable precautions to avoid an accident.

In the same way as we teach kids how to cross the road, advanced training can help you assess what a suitable and safe speed is for any given conditions. In some conditions it's perfectly safe, to drive more quickly - in others much better to slow right down to well below the legal limit if necessary.

I'd much rather be in the car with someone who uses their experience and brain to assess what an appropriate speed should be than someone who's so blind as to think that so long as they're not traveling above the speed limit then that makes them a safer driver than anyone else regardless of any additional training.

I'd much rather be in the car with someone who uses their experience and brain to assess what an appropriate speed should be than someone who's so blind as to think that so long as they're not traveling above the speed limit then that makes them a safer driver than anyone else regardless of any additional training.

Here's a thought then.

Why not do both?

Best of both worlds!

Everyones a winner!

Stay within the limit and employ advanced driving skills!

It's only a thought, but gosh, maybe it's got legs................

Most people think other drivers are crap.

Unless they are trying to justify themselves indulging their own impatience. Then everyone's a fine driver, of course, and should be given total responsibility 🙄

Why not do both?

Because it's sometimes possible given the right conditions to drive just as safely at a higher speed than a lower speed.

Because it's sometimes possible given the right conditions to drive just as safely at a higher speed than a lower speed.

not everyone crossing the road looks properly before they cross. The onus is often on both parties to look out for themselves and take suitable precautions to avoid an accident.

Because it's sometimes possible given the right conditions to drive just as safely at a higher speed than a lower speed.

Yes. But as I said - do you really trust people to choose their own speed?

Too many people waffling and whining about speed limits here so let's clear this up now. Of which of the following are you in favour?

1) No speed limits

2) Increased speed limits

3) Same speed limits as now

4) Something else (please state what)

After weekends way, etc. it's not unusual to find myself driving on empty roads, that I know well, the wrong side of midnight. Of course I could exceed the speed limits with only a [b]vanishingly small increase in the risks posed to myself and others[/b].

sometimes possible given the right conditions to drive just as safely at a higher speed than a lower speed.

I think people are confusing 'safer' with 'times when there are fewer RTCs'

At night there are fewer vehicles on the road, and fewer pedestrians. Obviously that means there are fewer interactions between vehicles and pedestrians.

That doesn't make it safer. Braking distances haven't changed, visibility is worse not better, reactions aren't quicker (likely to be slower - tired driver, drunk pedestrian).

The easiest way to reduce the number of KSI pedestrians and cyclists is to remove them from the roads - which is pretty much what we've done in the UK. Our KSI rates have (generally) fallen over the last few decades. That's not so much a sign that driving standards have improved as that fewer people walk or cycle, and when they do get hit paramedic care has improved so they only suffer life changing injuries rather than dying.

Thats not 'safer' for pedestrians and cyclists.

No 4, Molgrips - improved driver training and regular retesting, oh and perhaps a greater focus on other areas of driving standards and safety rather than the low hanging fruit it that is speeding.

No 4, Molgrips - improved driver training and regular retesting, oh and perhaps a greater focus on other areas of driving standards and safety rather than the low hanging fruit it that is speeding.

And then what about speed limits? Increase them or leave them where they are?

And are you happy for taxes to increase to pay for this?

Because it's sometimes possible given the right conditions to drive just as safely at a higher speed than a lower speed.

I don't believe that is ever true.

More realistically: sometimes given the right conditions you decide that the increase in risk from driving at a higher speed is acceptably small.

Which is fine, but other road users may not agree with your decision or be happy that you have made it for them.

[img] ?w=720[/img]

Too many people waffling and whining about speed limits here so let's clear this up now. Of which of the following are you in favour?

4) I'm happy for limits to be increased (or made variable) where there will only be a pretty limited impact of safety (which is probably just motorways) BUT in exchange I'd like to see the limits enforced by Average Speed Cameras.

Laws which are habitually broken without consequence are pretty useless and damage the respect for all laws. And that's where we are with speed limits. So adjust them then enforce them.

Residential limits of 20 or 30 I generally feel are about right, but again they are not well enforced.

60 limits on country roads are pretty mental in places. There are plenty of roads round here where doing that speed would be incredibly dangerous. I'm not sure what the answer is to that one is though.

All this extra enforcement would cost a bomb though.

Because it's sometimes possible given the right conditions to drive just as safely at a higher speed than a lower speed.

Until the law changes saying that you can behave as you seem to think it's appropriate, why not just admit you're wrong & adapt your driving accordingly.

Which is fine, but other road users may not agree with your decision or be happy that you have made it for them.

This.

It is easy to argue for lower speed limits and lower speeds because quite simply lower speeds = safer. However, it obviously isn't appropriate for everybody to be crawling around everywhere at 15kph, a compromise needs to be found between safety and convenience and that compromise is often not particularly easy to define or identify.

If you think posted limits are somehow of divine origin and that exceeding them at any point is reckless then you are putting a bit too much faith in the system. If a stretch of road changes from 40mph to 20mph then were the majority of drivers travelling down there at 35mph before the limit change reckless? Or if not, then how is travelling at 35mph after the 20mph limit is in force more reckless than when it was a 40mph limit?

There are significant campaign groups such as [url= http://www.20splenty.org/ ]20's Plenty for Us[/url] whose whole manifesto is to promote the installation of wide area 20mph limits using signs only and without giving consideration as to where the 20mph limits may be appropriate or not. They have been very successful too, so don't fool yourself into thinking that every speed limit is the result of a careful analysis.

That said, I do think speed limits are an important tool for road safety, but I think people can focus too much on just speed and forget about other important things like promoting good road user behaviour, or ensuring good highway design.

With regard to the provision of speed(safety) cameras, IME economics is (almost) ALWAYS a consideration. Also, from an ethical/common sense standpoint, speed enforcement should be targeting the reckless outliers only and not the majority - if a camera is hitting more than the fastest 15% then to me this indicates that something else is wrong e.g. speed limit too low, or issue with the highway design etc.

Oh and BTW did you know that speed limits don't apply to bicycles, unless in a Royal Park?

All this extra enforcement would cost a bomb though.

So would increasing the speed limits - the speed of the traffic influences aspects of road design (lane width, sight lines, corner radii, camber, signing, slip road length, crash barriers, lighting requirements, etc).

We'd need to change the roads or lower [url= http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/ ]the standards[/url].

And would enforcement really cost a bomb? We are constantly told that enforcement is a money-making exercise. Even without fines, if it significantly reduced the incident rate then it would recoup any investment.

Because it's sometimes possible given the right conditions to drive just as safely at a higher speed than a lower speed.

No it isn't.

How do you maintain the same kinetic energy and braking and reaction distances when you're travelling faster?

I think people can focus too much on just speed and forget about other important things like promoting good road user behaviour, or ensuring good highway design.

No-one here is doing that. I think that's a myth.

you are putting a bit too much faith in the system

Sticking to a system is important even if it's flawed. Consistency and predictability are very important on roads.

Which is fine, but other road users may not agree with your decision or be happy that you have made it for them.

Equally you could say that there might be others out there who might not agree with your discussion to shun additional driver training or be happy that you're putting them at additional risk because you've neglected to improve your skills further since passing your test.

GrahamS - Member

60 limits on country roads are pretty mental in places. There are plenty of roads round here where doing that speed would be incredibly dangerous. I'm not sure what the answer is to that one is though.

Beat drivers until they realise it's a limit not a target.

TBH so much of the problem revolves around this. Cyclists hold me up because they're not going at the limit! I get distracted by looking at the speedo to make sure I'm doing exactly 60! I'm safe, because I'm going at the limit (while doing my lipstick), you're dangerous, because you're going 1mph over. We're absolutely fixated.

If you think posted limits are somehow of divine origin and that exceeding them at any point is reckless then you are putting a bit too much faith in the system.

Entirely true they are not divine (or even always well thought out), however to ignore signage because you think its not always correct does reduce safety, because you may end up going to fast in a place where the limit has a real purpose.

By all means I think people should contact councils to get limits changed where they are incorrect (up or down), or even ask for more focussed measures such as speed bumps installed at the real problem areas. But choosing to ignore limits because you dont think they are correct increases the risk to other users.

We cannot be driving round based on the rule of our own opinion, that's why accidents happen, because the other person doesn't know your opinion.