Traffic Cameras – why not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thats not ‘safer’ for pedestrians and cyclists.

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t believe that is ever true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All this extra enforcement would cost a bomb though.

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

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

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

This.

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

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

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

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

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

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

All this extra enforcement would cost a bomb though.

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

We’d need to change the roads or lower the standards[/url].

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

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

No it isn’t.

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

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

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

you are putting a bit too much faith in the system

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

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

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

GrahamS – Member

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

[/quote]
That was not aimed at anybody in particular here but my general observation of the current industry E.g. 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.

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.[/quote]
I agree with you on the consistency bit. Several years back if an authority was considering a 20mph limit they would usually look at the existing speeds and install engineering measures to bring the 85%ile speeds down to below 24mph or so, now the 20mph signs are often just slapped up without consideration to the road conditions or speeds. IMHO the lack of consistency between the posted speed limit and the road conditions will erode the meaning of the speed limit sign to motorists.

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 you don’t know 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.

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.

yet you have and still dont understand how going faster increases risk.

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?

Best and worst supermini braking distances

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?

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?