[Closed] Traffic Cameras - why not?

Also interested in this. I've never understood complaints about speed cameras, IMO there would be nothing wrong in having them camouflaged all over the place (or at least in danger spots) - there's a simple solution to complainers: don't speed!

More money to councils or police could be a good thing, assuming it's then used correctly 😛

Interested in genuine views from the other point of view though, as long as they're not "I know when it's safe to speed" etc (guilty of this myself occasionally - doesn't mean it's right)

Not sure where you've seen speed cameras removed because I've seen more and more although most are now yellow so they can be seen.
I've no problem with the cameras and would like to see a lot more at traffic lights as it seems optional as to if someone will actually stop or carry on through. More camera prosecution too for use of mobile phones whilst driving as they is no excuse for it with good but cheap bluetooth connection available and most new cars come it as standard.

As I understand it a lot of cameras aren't in use anymore. Apparently the Police don't have the man power or money to manage them.

With modern digital technology I can't see how this stacks up but I remember reading it somewhere.

cheap bluetooth connection available

This STW, handsfree is not acceptable! Remember you are not safe to drive if you smoked a joint the day before or had 3 pints after work the night before. Murderer!

Speed cameras, my understanding. Many are now disactivated as previously the fines where collected by the local authority. Now the money goes to central government with a smaller amount returned to cover costs, so many local authrorities have lost interest and disactivated the cameras.

OP honestly more camera surveilence is a terrible idea. Introduce that for motorists amd within "5 minutes" you'll have calls for cyclists to have registration plates, road tax and insurance

Interested in genuine views from the other point of view though, as long as they're not "I know when it's safe to speed" etc (guilty of this myself occasionally - doesn't mean it's right)

Well...

I've never had a full UK licence. I took my lessons, had my exam booked, went partying for a summer before Uni. I was hungover (possibly still drunk) and pulled a sicky instead of taking the test. I've been driving abroad for the last 11 years and regularly for a couple of months a year when back in the UK.

Having always had rental cars, I find judging the speed of the car quite tricky. In my own I'm accurate to within 5 km/h but it's based on sensation of speed, knowledge of the gearing / rpm, knowing the road noise etc. In a rental it's harder. I did 95 in a brand new Merc E320: I'd have guessed I was doing 75 but it was so quiet. I find I spend too much time glancing down at the speedo, worrying (especially in 30s and 40s) I'll get flashed as creeping up over 30 is so easy. Over here in S.E. Asia, I do think that with most people being unaware of the speed limits, many drive at a speed they feel is safe for the conditions. You don't get the morons who drive [i]at[/i] the speed limit everywhere. They're more flexible and will drive way below the limit should that be appropriate.

Speed does kill but not as much as drink, drugs, mobile phones, lack of experience speed at or under the limit but without taking conditions into account*.

I think the increased use of variable speed limits as well as an increase in the NSL (85 mp/h?) is the way forward.

*I'll set the cruise control to 85-ish on a clear, dry motorway. I'll also happily sit at 50 or less (fewer?) if the conditions demand.

Because...

We are still thankfully Governed by Consent. We may be stuck in a defaco 2 party system, we may be subject to the influence of a biased media, the 99% may still be 'represented' by the 1%, but thankfully they do at least still give a monkeys what the voting public think.

Sadly for cyclists, the majority of voting adults are drivers, or are at least happy for the 'drivers first' status-quo to continue. Drivers, like everyone I think, don't want to have their every move scrutinised and recorded with every slight infraction of the rules punished with fines and another step towards being banned from driving. - During the 2010 General Election the Tories, amongst other things made a pledge to end the war on the motorist, which meant stricter rules on when and where camera could be placed and how visible they should be etc.

Whilst we're tarring everyone with the same brush, would we like to see mandatory safety testing and registration for all bikes, number plates, compulsory testing, every red light covered by cctv, every time someone rides on a pavement they get a fine. Speed limits for off-road trails for the safety off all users?

We need more dash cams and then a system put in place to make it easy to use the footage to grass on other road users.

As a driver AND a cyclist I'd be happy for a lot more surveillance if it reduced the number of accidents. There's been a massive campaign against Average Speed Cameras on the A9 - all the usual nonsense about speed doesn't kill and having to look at your speedo constantly. Deaths and injuries are down...

there would be nothing wrong in having them camouflaged all over the place (or at least in danger spots)

I believe there was an argument made that camouflaged cameras were "entrapment". 😕

Not sure how that works exactly. I doubt you'd get an armed robbery conviction thrown out because you didn't know the bank had cameras.

Whilst we're tarring everyone with the same brush, would we like to see mandatory safety testing and registration for all bikes, number plates, compulsory testing, every red light covered by cctv, every time someone rides on a pavement they get a fine. Speed limits for off-road trails for the safety off all users?

I'd be more than happy to see that *IF* there were 194,477 injuries and deaths caused by cyclists every year.

Legislation [i]should[/i] take the potential for harm into account.

Speed does kill but not as much as drink, drugs, mobile phones, lack of experience speed at or under the limit but without taking conditions into account*.

[b]Recorded Contributing Factors in Fatal Accidents:[/b]

[b]Exceeding speed limit: 16%[/b]
Driver/Rider impaired by alcohol: 8%
Driver/Rider impaired by drugs (illicit or medicinal): 3%
Driver using mobile phone: 1%
Learner or inexperienced driver/rider: 3%
Travelling too fast for conditions: 11%

Source: [url= https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2014 ]RAS50001, Contributory factors in reported accidents by severity, Great Britain, RRCGB 2014[/url]

The old GATSO cameras are now almost out of use, although I don't know about the others that you see at road junctions. The Police are now so under-resourced that they are making the best possible use of ANPR and social media to create an impression that they are out there catching naughty drivers. I guess this includes those Police-Camera-Action programmes you see on TV.

That's fatal accidents, but the [url= https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/463043/rrcgb2014-02.pdf ]overall contributors to accidents[/url] is Driver / Rider error or [b]reaction[/b]. Hmm, I wonder why they might be distracted.

I'm with ScotRoutes - I'd be happy for more surveillance. If it has a minor effect of calling for stricter rules on cycling, fair enough (I don't know how that would work but let them call for it) but if it has a major effect on improving road behaviour across all transport means surely that's a win.

There's been a massive campaign against Average Speed Cameras on the A9 - all the usual nonsense about speed doesn't kill and having to look at your speedo constantly. Deaths and injuries are down...

Its made a huge difference.

Its actually a much nicer road to drive now, stress free.

I don't think that blanket introduction of average speed cameras is going to cure everything overnight, but used appropriately they certainly have a positive impact on driver behaviour

I'd be perfectly happy for villages, town and city centres to be plastered with cameras to discourage the idiots tooling along at 40 in a 20 zone (such as many of the villages where I live where there a loads of kids, pedestrians, older people etc). I can't see how this would be a bad thing. On fast A-roads, dual carriageways, motorways, I'm not fussed about people doing 80 not 70 (or 60).

The Police are now so under-resourced

Which is really one of my points - if this merely pays for itself, surely its fair. Other than:

I believe there was an argument made that camouflaged cameras were "entrapment".

Not sure how that works exactly. I doubt you'd get an armed robbery conviction thrown out because you didn't know the bank had cameras

Which is the nonsense of it. You're on the road, you should be driving within the law. And if you're not, its not entrapment because, well...

That's fatal accidents

Yes, hence "Speed kills"

the overall contributors to accidents is Driver / Rider error or reaction. Hmm, I wonder why they might be distracted.

"Driver/Rider error or reaction" is a factor in 73% of all accidents, but that is a top-level category including things like Junction overshoot, Failed to signal, Poor turn etc.

If you want to make a point about distraction then look under the "Impairment or distraction" category where "Driver using mobile phone" is reportedly 0% of all accidents (though it is naturally hard to prove) and "Distraction in vehicle" is only 3%.

Exceeding the speed limit is still a contributing factor in 5% of all reported accidents.

Speed cameras got a bad rep as many weren't placed in areas where enhanced safety was needed, but in places where they were most likely to trap drivers.

I have seen many placed in inappropriate places, on dual carriageways that had just changed down to 40 and placed behind trees, etc.

What would be a lot better is unmarked cars with cameras and an efficient way of prosecuting dangerous drivers.

No one could really complain about this and everyone would have to drive better as they wouldn't be able to tell if there was an unmarked cop around.

Speed limits could actually be increased in some areas, such as motorways, as you would be sure that no-one was tailgating, undertaking, etc, which are the things that cause most of the problems.

And some of the money raised could be used to put more unmarked cars on the road, and then you would have a larger number of police around if you really needed them for emergencies - they could even carry arms in the boot ready for the impending terrorist attack...

It's all about the money, money, money.

For cameras to by viable, they have to earn their keep. This means catching people, and moreover catching people who are going to pay the fixed penalty rather than contesting it.

This is the problem with stealth cameras. If folk knew that cameras were likely to be hidden, everyone would drive to the limit. Which is great in theory, they've done their job; but then there'd be no money to maintain them, none would work, there would no longer be a deterrent and everyone would go back to speeding again.

Cameras could be placed in high-revenue areas, like right after a speed limit change. You'd probably catch a lot of people right where the limit drops from NSL to 30. But you're not really gaining anything in terms of road safety by prosecuting people who were actually doing 30mph ten yards down the road and just hadn't sufficiently decelerated by the signpost, and I'd wager that a lot more people would contest the charge rather than paying the FP which again is more expensive to process.

So, policy is to put them in blackspots and high-risk areas, nice and visible. Which makes sense if you want to actually act as a deterrent and reduce the number of accidents. And if you think about it, this way they're not just speed cameras, they're speed and awareness cameras. If you're exceeding the speed limit in an accident blackspot whilst paying sufficiently little attention to your surroundings that you don't see a dirty great big fluorescent yellow camera, you deserve a ticket.

I find I spend too much time glancing down at the speedo

If this is a problem, then you're not a good driver. You need to know how fast you are actually going, because as you say it's easy to lose track if you don't pay attention.

"Driver/Rider error or reaction" is a factor in 73%

And of course, the faster you go the less time you (and those around you) have to react....

For cameras to by viable, they have to earn their keep

Nonsense. They're not a commercial enterprise!

I think a part of the original issue was that there was an issue with them capturing people's faces when taken front on. Recording images without consent was seen as invasion of Civil Liberties kind of thing, so that was why the GATSOs switch to only taking picture from rear and hence the complications about establishing who was driving at the time etc. To capture phone use, images would need to be captured from the front, which would re-visit this problem.

Personally I have no issue with any kind of recording if it helps reduce the number of offenders with phones or, my pet hate, multiple cars piling through after lights turn red 😡

Whenever the village my parents live in requested a camera - because drivers were routinely speeding through it - they were were told they couldn't have a camera until someone was killed or injured. Which seems a bit stupid when that's what they were trying to prevent.

And if you think about it, this way they're not just speed cameras, they're speed and awareness cameras.

But on the flip-side it means people interpret the [i]absence[/i] of cameras as an indication that it is okay to speed.

[i] lot of this could be caught by camera, especially the speeding but also phone use.[/i]

Anything that can't be automatically recorded, would have to be watched by people eg. to see who is using their phones. That's just not feasible.

they were were told they couldn't have a camera until someone was killed or injured. Which seems a bit stupid when that's what they were trying to prevent.

Our village asked for a crossing to be put in place, as kids cross the main road by the shops to get to the park, but many drivers come through there at speed, completely ignoring the 20 signs.

We were told we couldn't have a crossing as speeding drivers wouldn't have enough time to see it and slow down. 😯

Nonsense. They're not a commercial enterprise!

My mistake, they must be free to install, maintain and process then. Silly me.

The chief of police here in Durham refused to have any cameras on his patch. "Yay!" said all the drivers. Until it became clear that instead of cameras, he would hire those awful vans to hide round blind corners where the NSL went down to 40.

My mistake, they must be free to install, maintain and process then. Silly me.

if you truly want to stop speeding, stop allowing cars to break the speed limit and fit disabling devices so phones don't work in cars OR accept driverless cars once they are categorically proven as safer than having a numpty behind the wheel.

Technically all of this is possible and cameras wouldn't then have to be installed to spy on us all.

Going back to the OP point, cameras only work when they can be triggered automatically by the offence - speeding, running a red light. To catch mobile phone users you would need constant monitoring and it would require exactly the correct angle and judgement to interpret.

Full driverless cars is the only real solution to that issue and speeding, and drink driving etc. 20 years away?

Until it became clear that instead of cameras, he would hire those awful vans to hide round blind corners where the NSL went down to 40.

We need more dash cams and then a system put in place to make it easy to use the footage to grass on other road users

Absolutely not. Having cameras in cars and bikes seems to only provoke either a) extreme risk taking by the user trying to record their own dangerous driving/riding to impress their mates, or b) vigilante, self righteous and militant style driving/riding creating unnecessary frustration and bad feeling between drivers and/or cyclists, or c) provides a prop for those who generally feel un-confident on the road where more training would actually make them safer.

What's needed to improve road safety is simply:

a) greater investment in road and cycling infrastructure allowing vehicles to travel faster than they currently do where safe to do so, or slower than they currently do where unsafe to do so (variable limits).

b) greater education with a forced re-test of drivers to retain their licenses every 5-10 years. Compulsory motorway training for new and foreign drivers living in the UK (who often seem currently unfamiliar with how a UK motorway works).

c) a much bigger incentive for drivers to further their skills (e.g. advanced driving tuition) which could offer a significant incentive on insurance discounts, VED tax etc.

molgrips - Member

You need to know how fast you are actually going

You absolutely don't.
You need to able to judge that the speed you are driving at is safe for the current conditions. What that actual speed is, is of no relevance.

One should be able to drive perfectly safely without a speedo, as we can't limit the roads for safety at all times in all conditions.

If you can't do this, you shouldn't be on the road IMHO.

You need to able to judge that the speed you are driving at is safe for the current conditions. What that actual speed is, is of no relevance.

Two reasons why you're wrong:

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

The speedo is always the same, so you need to look at that *as well* as reading road conditions. The speedo should, if you are a good driver, help calibrate your perception.

2) There are other people on the road besides you. You might be able to control your car at 80mph, but if you were a cyclist pulling out of an awkward junction and a car comes over that crest at 80, you'd be happy with that? Driving is a social activity. Keeping to broadly similar *actual* speeds helps everyone else judge your speed, avoid accidents and keep traffic flowing nicely.

My mistake, they must be free to install, maintain and process then. Silly me.

Since when do police activities need to turn a profit? That's the ultimate in Toryism right there!

Agreed with sbob. The actual speed is of no relevance other than to the law.

As for enforcement cameras in general, they're largely useless IMO. I do 26 miles each way through heavy traffic. Of that only about 7-8 miles isn't controlled by cameras. I know where every single one of them is, and I can generally do what speed I like. That said I'm in it for the long run so I stick roughly to the limits and I have plenty of time so that's no problem. I'd say my maximum speed is one of the lowest of anyone on that stretch of road, but my average speed is probably the highest. 🙂

Speed / safety - so when driving at 130kmph (84mph) on a French motorway it's "instant dealth" vs 70 in UK ?

My gripe with speed cameras is they are to a large degree about making money, getting knicked at 2am on a deserted dual carriage way etc which is far less dangerous than driving right up someone's @rse at 60.

If they want to stop phone usage in the car they could just disable them at faster than say 10 mph. Yes you couldn't use one as a passenger but so what really ? Trains could have a special wifi as could say licenced taxis and limos for legit business use.

You don't seem to understand how our brains perceive speed.

As an exercise, I like to play "guess my speed" before looking at the speedo. I've done it so often that I'm pretty bloody accurate now. It's much harder at higher speeds, but hitting 30mph on the money in my own car is a piece of piss.

Sure, there's other factors. A big part of it is knowing my own vehicle, so it's more challenging in something you're not used to. WRT "do 120mph for an hour or two then slow to 70, it'll seem like you've almost stopped" however, I remember this relative speed change being a massive issue when I first started driving, but now it's a non-issue. I wonder if it's something your brain gets used to?

Since when do police activities need to turn a profit? That's the ultimate in Toryism right there!

They don't need to turn a profit per sé, but they do need to be funded.

My gripe with speed cameras is they are to a large degree about making money, getting knicked at 2am on a deserted dual carriage way etc which is far less dangerous than driving right up someone's @rse at 60.

My gripe is that they're very binary. There's no differentiation between someone momentarily breaking the speed limit and a habitual speeder, and as Jamby says there's no consideration of other factors. Weather conditions, tailgating, playing Pokemon Go etc. A policeperson can make an educated decision as to whether a slap on the wrist is appropriate or whether they should have the book thrown at them, a GATSO just goes "here's your ticket."

So because we can't afford an infinite number of policemen we shouldn't have speed cameras?

A policeperson can make an educated decision as to whether a slap on the wrist is appropriate or whether they should have the book thrown at them, a GATSO just goes "here's your ticket."

Surely if you're so good at controlling your speed this doesn't matter?

Sorry for trolling here but I do struggle to understand why such a simple concept produces so much argument. Or rather, I struggle to come up with answers past the obvious.

My gripe is that they're very binary. There's no differentiation between someone momentarily breaking the speed limit and a habitual speeder, and as Jamby says there's no consideration of other factors. Weather conditions, tailgating, playing Pokemon Go etc. A policeperson can make an educated decision as to whether a slap on the wrist is appropriate or whether they should have the book thrown at them, a GATSO just goes "here's your ticket."

I always keep it below 25 mph when I'm playing Pokemon Go. It helps hatch your eggs.

Stay safe kids. 🙂

[quote=molgrips ]Surely if you're so good at controlling your speed this doesn't matter?You don't even have to be [i]that[/i] good at controlling your speed. There's an error-factor of around 10% built in and 60mph is a limit not a target. That means hovering anywhere between 55 and 65 should be fine. That's quite a bit of leeway.

My gripe is that they're very binary. There's no differentiation between someone momentarily breaking the speed limit and a habitual speeder

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

To be honest I'd be more worried about those speeders who momentarily break the limit but have not even been aware that they've done so - the accidental speeders! If you break the limit accidentally or without realising then what does that say about the general standards of your driving and observation skills?

There seems to be a general notion that speed limits are arbitrary and that as a driver you instinctively know what the "correct" safe speed for a road is - because you know your car, the conditions and your abilities.
You have more information than whoever put up those signs, so you can decide when it is safe to go fast.

But next time you are hurtling down an unknown road at 70mph when it is inexplicably signed as a 40, think about all the information you [i]don't[/i] have, that the person setting that limit [i]may[/i] have considered:

What's the accident history of the road? Maybe there are concealed entranceways somewhere ahead? Maybe there is a loose gritty road surface ahead? Or mud on the road from tractors? Do they get a lot of fallen trees here? Or wildlife? Or people walking on the road? Maybe they are slowing people down because that innocuous looking corner ahead is actually much sharper than it looks and tends to catch people out on its weird camber? Maybe there is often stationary traffic ahead? Maybe they get a lot of cyclists using it?

I'm sure I'll be accused of driving like a granny but generally if I see a speed limit that seems too slow for the road, my default assumption is that they know something I don't - not the other way round.

(not pretending I'm a saint btw)

It doesn't matter too much to me directly, no. So what, I'm not allowed an opinion?

Can you not see how perhaps the theft of a pencil eraser from WH Smiths and the theft of ten grand from the Post Office might not merit different sentences without you needing to be Reggie Kray?

So because we can't afford an infinite number of policemen we shouldn't have speed cameras?

Have you two got your web browsers set to write-only? Where did I (or for that matter, anyone) say we shouldn't have them?

I think they're poor substitute for the police as they do one job, which is to ensure that everyone travels at or below an arbitrary speed limit irrespective of any other conditions for the ten yards or so of road that they're pointing at. A police presence can check for all manner of poor driving as well as many other crimes and have the advantage of being mobile.

In the absence of the police then yes, of course there's an argument for having speed control at accident blackspots (assuming it's not possible to address why they're blackspots in the first place). And the "managed motorway" ones are ace, and have made a big difference to traffic flow (because fluid dynamics). But in and of themselves they're a blunt object solution to a single component in a much wider and more complex problem.

Accidents / collisions can occur for any number of reasons, often several contributory factors even (gosh, who'd have thought that it might actually be complicated). "Wah wah it's a limit not a target" is a massive oversimplification, it's just low-hanging fruit. Let's get some tailgating cameras installed for a start off.

I do struggle to understand why such a simple concept produces so much argument.

Are you arguing? I just don't agree with you is all, sorry and all that.

But next time you are hurtling down an unknown road at 70mph when it is inexplicably signed as a 40, think about all the information you don't have, that the person setting that limit may have considered:

What's the accident history of the road? Maybe there are concealed entranceways somewhere ahead? Maybe there is a loose gritty road surface ahead? Or mud on the road from tractors? Do they get a lot of fallen trees here? Or wildlife? Or people walking on the road? Maybe they are slowing people down because that innocuous looking corner ahead is actually much sharper than it looks and tends to catch people out on its weird camber? Maybe there is often stationary traffic ahead? Maybe they get a lot of cyclists using it?

That's totally what proper observation when driving is for. If you don't know how to anticipate or make consideration for all the above when driving (whether traveling above or below the posted limit) then it's probably time to consider taking an advanced driving or observation course. This is exactly the sort of stuff they'll equip you to deal with and would be why this sort of training would be beneficial for all drivers after they've passed their test and then again at regular intervals thereafter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...This is not the case.

I totally agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's all there is to it.

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

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

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

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

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

You replied while I was typing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

molgrips - Member

Two reasons why you're wrong:

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

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

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

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

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

Driving is a social activity.

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

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

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

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

My arse.

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

What speed limit should this be?

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

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

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

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

What speed limit should this be?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ah, a double bluff! Damn you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A contributing factor or the only factor?

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

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

A contributing factor or the only factor?

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

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

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

The stats would agree with that.

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

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

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

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

You're pressing on with the wrong argument.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of course judging by this

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes but the over zealous enforcement of speed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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