[Closed] Traffic Cameras - why not?

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.