[Closed] Traffic Cameras - why not?

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.

agent007 - Member

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.

Entirely true, doesn't mean you should then put them at risk. Two wrongs dont make a right.

you are putting a bit too much faith in the system... don't fool yourself into thinking that every speed limit is the result of a careful analysis.

I don't. My point there is that [i]you don't know[/i] which speed limit is the result of careful analysis and which one was just a local councillor trying to make his drive to the golf club easier.

Unfortunately people assume that because they don't personally have the information on why a speed limit has been set then that information must not exist and the speed limit is "wrong".

Isn't it better to assume that the folk who have access to the required data might know something you don't?
Even if that isn't always true.

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?

It'd be pretty unusual to go from a 40 down to a 20 but yes the folk doing 35 after that change are reckless.

Why? Because there are now drivers (like me) obeying the limit and doing 20, so going at 35mph introduces a pretty big speed differential and increases conflict.

Plus, as above, there may well be a good reason for dropping it to twenty that they are unaware of.

There are significant campaign groups such as 20's Plenty for Us

Yep all for that. The 20 petition in our village got a lot of signatures (unfortunately the LA decided it could only be an "advisory" 😕 )

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.

I don't think I've discussed "shunning" additional training. I'm all for that and agreed with you that periodic re-tests would help a lot.

As for my skills, they are markedly improved since my own test. Yeah I've not had additional formal training, but that doesn't mean I've not learnt anything.

Entirely true, doesn't mean you should then put them at risk. Two wrongs dont make a right.

Can you please explain how driving at a speed thats appropriate to the road conditions, with due care and consideration for other road users, in a car that's way more capable than average, with extra driver training thrown in on top is putting anyone at increased risk?

Can you please explain how driving at a speed thats appropriate to the road conditions, in a car that's way more capable than average, with extra driver training thrown in on top is putting anyone at increased risk?

You Sir, are well on there way to - if you're lucky - to a Driver's Awareness Course.....& if you're not -something far, far worse.

I suggest you hot foot to a track & get the desire to drive fast out of your system there.

Anything less is selfish BS.

We have, numerous times. Lower speed increases the time you have to react and reduces the consequence of an actual collision you dont avoid as you are going quicker (impact forces).

All your extra skill and awesome car can still be applied at this lower speed.

This chart shows that applying the same attentiveness and car gives 13m extra stopping distance between 30 and 40 mph. That could be the difference between stopping 1m short of someone stepping in the road without looking, or stopping 12m later with them on your bonnet. its pretty easy to understand.
[img] [/img]

spending money installing a wide area 20mph limit rather than looking at where the casulties are, what caused them, and what could be done to remove the causes.

"Good news, now that your child is dead we can finally get that speed bump we've been asking for."

Why wait for casualties and react after the event?

The 20s Plenty style campaigns are about local residents choosing to lower the limits on their own streets. Shouldn't they get a say? Seems like they are pretty well placed to decide what they want.

And there are reasons beyond casualty numbers to install 20 limits: slower, quieter, more liveable streets encourage kids to play outside, encourage people to ride bikes, encourage folk to shop locally and generally make the place a bit nicer.

Can you please explain how driving at a speed thats appropriate to the road conditions, with due care and consideration for other road users, in a car that's way more capable than average, with extra driver training thrown in on top is putting anyone at increased risk?

Because there's more kinetic energy and longer stopping distances and less time to react than the SAME driver in the SAME car.

How can you not understand that?!

EDIT:As others have said, the risk may be small, it might be small enough that you consider it worth it. But the extra risk exists. If you're denying the increase in energy and stopping distances then you're not as good a driver as you think you are.

Of which of the following are you in favour?

4) Something else (please state what)

Surprised you missed "lower limits."

4) I'm in favour of reviewing speed limits for appropriateness (many are too high, many are too low (yes yes, "IMHO")) and I'm in favour of variable speed limits which can adjust to conditions like we have on managed motorways.

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. However, until we have a driving culture of continual assessment and improvement with retests and advanced training rather than the current "here's your licence, you now know everything you need to know for the next half century" situation, that's not going to happen which is why (as I've said repeatedly) speed limits are necessary.

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.

I also agree with everything Twisty's said.

All this extra enforcement would cost a bomb though.

"Nonsense. They're not a commercial enterprise!" (-:

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

I agree with your second statement. But a flawed system should be challenged, reviewed and remediated.

This chart shows

That chart hasn't changed since I passed my test and probably hasn't changed since it was introduced (somewhere around the 40s as far as I can establish, it's from THC 3rd edition).

Thinking distance probably hasn't changed much, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that any modern car can out-brake my 1970s Fiesta, and that was probably light-years ahead of what it took to stop a car doing 70 (assuming they ever went that fast) in 1940. I'd love to see how braking distances actually compare now.

Can you please explain how driving at a speed thats appropriate to the road conditions, with due care and consideration for other road users, in a car that's way more capable than average, with extra driver training thrown in on top is putting anyone at increased risk?

Can't tell of this is a troll or you really are the classic terrible driver that thinks they and their car are amazing and in reality are the terrible driver everyone fears, overtaking queues into oncoming traffic and having to slam on the brakes and squeeze into line.

Nice replies guys but by some of the crazy logic being shown here you could equally say that someone who hasn't purchased the best handling, most competent and stable vehicle that they can afford, equipped with the best tyres is selfishly compromising the safety of themselves and all of the rest of us on the road. That's a joke by the way but makes you think doesn't it!

Anyone who spouts on about how important road safety is, yet hasn't taken it upon themselves (through further training) to improve their own driving or observation skills etc since passing their test is a totally bonkers in my book and is probably not really best placed to preach to others on this matter.

Anyone who spouts on about how important road safety is, yet hasn't taken it upon themselves (through further training) to improve their own driving or observation skills etc since passing their test is a totally bonkers in my book

Serious question - do you not think it is possible to learn these things yourself?

and I'm in favour of variable speed limits which can adjust to conditions like we have on managed motorways.

But a flawed system should be challenged, reviewed and remediated.

Ok, but the cost of reviewing speed limits and installing and administering variable limits on significant lengths of road would be huge. And all so that some impatient people can save a few minutes here and there? Not worth it.

Because let's face it, this is all because some folk are a bit impatient. I'm happy to drive along at 60 or less on country roads, it's just not that big of a deal. I have to teach my kids to be patient, adults need to be patient too.

Now, I AM in favour of increased driver training, monitoring and policing, and yes I would vote for increased taxes to provide this. Because it IS a matter of life and death. However I wouldn't increase speed limits just to placate the impatient and entitled.

Anyone who spouts on about how important road safety is, yet hasn't taken it upon themselves (through further training) to improve their own driving or observation skills etc since passing their test is a totally bonkers in my book and is probably not really best placed to preach to others on this matter.

your right about the previous point though, anyone not doing their best is putting others at risk. No-one here is arguing that. What we are saying is YOU can do the best (you took extra training) but instead choose to use this advantage to allow you to go faster, so increasing the risk when compared to you doing the speed limit.

To repeat that another way;
Yes its probable that the trained you at higher speed is safer than the un-trained you at lower speed. However the trained you at the lower speed is safest.

... and frankly, if the trained you cant realise that then are you really skilled enough to judge whats safe?

[quote=Cougar ]Thinking distance probably hasn't changed much, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that any modern car can out-brake my 1970s Fiesta, and that was probably light-years ahead of what it took to stop a car doing 70 (assuming they ever went that fast) in 1940. I'd love to see how braking distances actually compare now.

http://www.which.co.uk/news/2012/05/best-and-worst-supermini-braking-distances-285596/

A few years old and just the first I found - the worst car in their test of cheap low performance cars beat the highway code figure by 20% (from a speed slightly higher than the comparable HC speed). The best by almost 40%.

For reference, the HC figure is a deceleration of 0.67g, the worst car in that test manages 0.89g and the best manages 1.15g.

Serious question - do you not think it is possible to learn these things yourself?

Yes to some degree and that's what I did at first, but to have someone who know what they're doing sat next to you giving tips and advice whilst you're driving is a real eye opener 😯

I like this chat because it's one of those places where you genuinely can make a solid logical and moral case for either side, and yet neither side is very good at respecting that. Makes for good Heated Debates.

For the sake of argumeent:

STATO - Member

All your extra skill and awesome car can still be applied at this lower speed.

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 replaced the legal-but-terrible tyres my car came with, with 4 quality tyres. It makes it enormously safer and more stable, especially in the wet. But the last guy wasn't doing anything wrong. If we both drive down my road at 20mph and a kid steps out in front, I've got a far better chance of stopping or avoiding him... But the other guy wasn't doing anything wrong there either, despite being less safe.

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.

Yes to some degree and that's what I did at first, but to have someone who know what they're doing sat next to you giving tips and advice whilst you're driving is a real eye opener

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

What we are saying is YOU can do the best (you took extra training) but instead choose to use this advantage to allow you to go faster, so increasing the risk when compared to you doing the speed limit.

Yes I sometimes drive faster but in a way that's appropriate to the conditions on the road, so no significant increase in risk. Of course I understand that in an accident the forces could be greater with more speed but the whole point about advanced driving is not getting into an accident in the first place.

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.

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

[quote=Northwind ]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.

If I fit the best possible tyres to my car which has just been serviced and in perfect condition - and I've done lots of extra driver training - how many beers am I allowed to drink before I drive home from the pub? 😈

edit: I'm also prepared to stick to the speed limit if it means I can have an extra beer

molgrips - Member

Serious question - do you not think it is possible to learn these things yourself?

How would you know you'd learnt correctly?
Dangerous game to play.

molgrips - Member

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

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

NEXT!

xxx
sbob,
pedestrian, cyclist, and born again eco-warrior.

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

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.