Re: warning speed camera

it's a blindingly quick bit of road that is and sitting at 70 the traffic flies past you as if you were riding a milk float

so everyone who speeds up between the sign and then brakes hard before them dones't cause a bigger stop start effect than leaving th espeed limit as it was on a normal day then? i use teh 25 at least 3 tiems a week during the evening rush hour and i have yet to see constant movement between junction 9 through to junction 15

it's a load of cobblers in theory it should work, but in practice it just sucks goats

In message , dojj writes

Its a bit of road. Its only blindingly quick if you chose to drive it that way. No one is encouraging you to speed. In fact as there are mobile vans there on average four days a week, I'd say the opposite.

can't we just stop this fuggin Orwellian bloody nightmare now .. its escalating annually with intrusions into privacy undertaken under the all encompassing if your innocent you have nothing to fear banner.

"Steve Parry" mumbled:

I know, I'd rather have a boot full of caltrops and just pull a lever and ground the tailgating git, but it's not really on in a civilised contry, is it.

In message , Andrewr At Work writes

Then your counter-example was not relevant to the point I was making.

Then we disagree. If you accept that driving though a 30mph city centre at 60mph is inconsiderate to pedestrians and other road users the forcing them to keep to the limit is in effect giving consideration to others.

I assume you mean a safe speed within the legal maximum?

I think you will find that those drivers who fail to adjust to unfavourable conditions are equally irresponsible when conditions are favourable.

Possibly because you didn't address those points to me.

Eh? This thread was started by some dork moaning about getting nicked for speeding.

I wouldn't disagree with that.

Apparently there is. As Neil Barker pointed out elsewhere in this thread :-

The roads would be very quiet place.

Generally they can.... within limits.

We still have to legislate for those who can't.

That's probably because there isn't.

I'm afraid I can't reach any other conclusion.

(uk.rec.caravans trimmed as I don't think anyone from there is following this)

i can't say i've ever seen them then but then agian, i don't speed :) i get paid to be late :)

but at least that section moves i normally go round from 15 into kent and stuff, and once the traffic has passed junction 10, it all either speeds up going anti clock wise or shudders to a halt going clock wise

isn't that th eone they were testing in germany or the middle east a while ago?

" dojj" mumbled:

Well...there's a splendid climbing frame....amazing what you can do with a welder and some steel.

In message , Guy King writes

If you ask the numpties who scare you witless if they can safely judge what speed is appropriate for a given condition without feeling the need to assign a numerical value to it. I bet they can too.

You seem to be suggesting a maximum speed of '30 mph unless you are a really good driver' speed limit?

Indeed,

This is of course the crux of the whole problem.

Ask anyone if they are a bad driver... how many 'yes' replies will you get? Ask anyone if they are a safe driver... how many 'no' replies will you get? Ask anyone if they can judge a safe speed to drive at on any particular road/condition... how many 'no' replies will you get?

Very few I would guess.

I believe that I am a good judge of road conditions. Everyone believes that they are a good judge of road conditions. Everyone thinks that they are basically good drivers. Everyone believes that they can judge the correct speeds to drive at on roads that they don't know.

We are all somewhat biassed in our judgements. and the amount of accidents that occur, recorded or otherwise, major or minor, clipped kerbs, minor shunts, even trivia such as overly heavy breaking at junctions, corners taken too wide etc prove that not everyone is.

That is why we nominate independent judges.

In message , Tom Harvey writes

Very nicely summed up.

The same as they use for other dangerous/careless driving charges.

In message , Paul Smith writes

Safest roads in the world, or safe roads? There is clearly a difference. Do you not feel that roads could be safer?

Some drivers are very safe, some aren't. I just think that drivers should not be the ones to judge their own skills. The 'I am a good driver, I am quite safe driving like this...' attitude that is more dangerous than many other dangerous habits discussed in this thread.

Agreed.

My response was not purely in reference to speed. Excessive speed is a major problem in some places, however, my main comments were in response to the suggestion that drivers are capable of judging how good at driving they are, with the implication that they be allowed the freedom to judge their own maximum speed. My response was that not everyone is capable of doing so, and worse, many that are not capable of doing so think that they are.

In response to your figures, however, they do not take into account the actual speeds that people are travelling. (It is quite possible that more people break speed limits in 2002 than in 1993, which would negate your argument, indeed it would support the use of more speed restrictions). They also do not take into account a very large number of accidents that are non fatalities, or non-recorded events.

There are also many many other factors than speed that need to be taken into account over a fifteen year period. Changes in the driving tests, improvements in average car acceleration, and top speeds, increased driving and commuting distances etc etc.

In isolation these figures are completely meaningless.

I agree that this is a dangerous idea, if taken in isolation. I am not sure that millions of drivers do believe this, but since there is no evidence to support or disprove this I cannot argue. I also think that speed can be a barometer of safety (but not the only one) when put into the context of a specific traffic situation.

Do you have any evidence for this?

In my car I do not have to keep looking at the speedometer as I have an instant audio indication of when I go to fast built into the passenger seat :-)

In answer to your question I would say that as distraction leads to inattention the two are not mutually exclusive. I am not sure that being aware of the speed that you are travelling at is a distraction from driving. Is it not an inclusive part of driving? It should be no more distracting than checking your rear-view mirror. Are you suggesting that this is a dangerous and distracting habit too?

Personally I am partly in agreement with the people who say that the police are frequently too harsh on speeding. I would rather see speed enforcement carried out in the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law so that, for example, a person caught speeding outside a school on a Sunday evening is not necessary endangering the absent school children. Speed cameras cannot make such judgements.

I do not know what the best answer is. I do know that letting people judge there own speed limits is not it. I do believe, that excessive speeding is still an antisocial habit, a major problem in some places, and needs some kind of control.

I am also pretty sure that speed cameras are not going to go away.

In message , Paul Smith writes

Ok.

Whilst there is some merit in the correlation between the amount of accidents and the quality of driving I am not entirely convinced by this.

For example: A bad driver who has an accident at high speed may cause a fatal accident. A bad driver who has an accident at low speed may just have had a shunt. A good driver who has an accident at high speed may have had a shunt. A good driver who has an accident at low speed may just piss off the driver he has cut up, or clip the curb etc.

Quality of driving has not changed, but the impact of the events has.

My comments were in response to another poster who had implied (although not explicitly stated) this as a potential solution.

Speed alone possibly does not kill, but it must be considered a contributing factor. Reduce some of the factors and accidents either do not happen, or are less severe. Speed is merely one of these factors. Government legislation is also targeting areas such as un-roadworthy cars, car design, mobile phone use etc, which are possible other factors.

Personally I can see this exchange going nowhere. But if you keep trying they may answer your questions directly rather than just referring you to look up the research..

I suspect that no form of regulation of any type will stop the completely reckless driver. However, by reducing the amount of other dangers the roads in general become a safer place.

This is a dead URL.

In this quote he is not suggesting that speed is a barometer of safety at all, either in isolation or combined with other factors. I suspect that this is an unfortunate quote where he was actually questioning peoples attitude to speed limits, and not suggesting that you drive everywhere at exactly the speed limit.

But if you agree that we need speed limits, then you will agree that you have to set a speed limit at something. The speed limits are maximums, not minimums, or recommended speeds. In general, busier, foggier, wet or unlit conditions should be less than the speed limit, not the other way around. The only exceptions that I can think of are outside schools, where possibly a peak/off peak limit could be used.

Are you suggesting that all speed limits are raised up to an "absolute safe maximum" for ideal conditions (whatever that is) and we rely upon drivers to drive slower if conditions deem it necessary? I thought that we had agreed that only a sub set of the driving community would be a good judge of this.

I find it hard to believe that ALL high mileage drivers would say this. Hearsay is not real evidence. I am amazed if drivers worry about getting a speeding fine to the degree that they become less safe drivers.

It is not the good drivers that are the problem.

You do not think that a good driver can drive within the speed limit without becoming a road hazzard?

People have been glancing at their speedos for years, long long before the introduction of speed cameras. Even if what you say is correct, and the glance at the speedo is a significant distraction, (which I am still far from convinced of), then can you really say that any increase in these glances due to the introduction of speed cameras is significant enough to account for an increase in accidents. I am more inclined to think that the popularity of mobile phones, ICE and satnav etc. is the distractions factor that you should be concerned with, not a glance in the rear view mirror.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more your figures showing an increase in fatalities over the last 10 years despite the introduction of speed camera seems to co-incides with the increased popularity of mobile phones.

If you can offer any kind of independent evidence of increases in accidents in the immediate vicinity of traffic cameras (not hearsay, and not links to your own web site) then I am open to being convinced, but I suspect that this argument is smoke screen put up by mobile phone users, or people who have got an extra three points on their licence and a £60 fine etc.

The figures that we have already agreed that we can't say with certainty what cause has what effect on?

But accepting this, and accepting that you cannot have police officers stationed at every potential accident spot then how else can the law be effectively policed?

Your suggestions assume a police presence. If there is no police presence then there is potentially an irresponsible driver not being policed. The presence of a speed camera is a surrogate police presence. It is far from ideal, as we have already agreed, but is an established alternative, and I have not been shown any better alternatives.

We shall see.

It is more likely that there will be small changes. I cannot see them vanishing over night, and I suspect that, even with a government change you will find that there are less 'unnecessary' ones than you suspect.

I must admit that I came to this discussion as a neutral in the speed camera debate, and, although I am perhaps playing devils advocate a little, you are not putting up any argument that has convinced me of a viable alternative.

I suspect that we will have to agree to disagree on this.

In message , Paul Smith writes

Would that be the page that says at the top, and I quote "The German Autobahns are pretty safe", and then goes on to show that the motorway mortality rate in Germany is twice that of the UK?

It sure would.

The German Autobahns are 4 times safer than the motorways in Portugal or Hungary. And those in Portugal and Hungary are MASSIVELY safer than roads in India and other developing countries.

Do you have a problem understanding relative risk?

The German Autobahns are also safer than the EU average.

That's not saying much. Don't forget the Isle of Man. No speed limits there!

Perhaps contributors to this thread could state whether they are lawyers, police, caravanners or bikers. It might help us to understand their point of view :-)

Roger. (Old and slow biker)

In message , Paul Smith writes

Nope. I understand that they are twice as dangerous as UK motorways.

I see. We are aiming to meet the EU average for fatalities are we?