Speed Cameras, are they for safety, or revenue?

[Phatboy317]

LoonR1 said:

In which case why the problem with the speed limits now in place? One of your road engineers will have worked them out, despite people thinking that a councillor comes up with the limits off their own back. Speed limits are reduced fairly frequently, but I wonder if that is because the 85th percentile travel at that speed?

The ring road near me was an NSL until recently. Then it was widened, a separate cycle lane created and a central reservation put in place, but the speed limit was reduced to 50. It frustrates me now, but I reckon the 85th per tile would've been c50mph. If they did it now it'd be at best a 40 limit.

That's because speed limits are no longer set according to the same rules as they used to be.
Nowadays, they're either set to average traffic speed, or in many cases I suspect, as low as they can get away with.

[Devil2575]

LoonR1 said:

I don't crash a lot. Last time I crashed was 2006 on my bike in fault accident. Not crashed a car since 1994ish

I also haven't been penalised for speeding since 1999.

I speed every single time I drive or ride and cover around 20,000 miles a year now down form the heady days of 40,000 a year in the late 90s early 2000s.

Someone will do some correlation now.

Like I said, on an individual basis whether you have crashed much or not tells us nothing about whether speeding increases the risk of death or not.

[Dammit]

Phatboy317 said:

That's because speed limits are no longer set according to the same rules as they used to be.
Nowadays, they're either set to average traffic speed, or in many cases I suspect, as low as they can get away with.

That sounds like a paranoid conspiracy theory.

[LoonR1]

Devil2575 said:

Like I said, on an individual basis whether you have crashed much or not tells us nothing about whether speeding increases the risk of death or not.

I know. I was just giving Greg66 the full picture that he wanted.

[NRS]

Dammit said:

Phatboy317 said:

That's because speed limits are no longer set according to the same rules as they used to be.
Nowadays, they're either set to average traffic speed, or in many cases I suspect, as low as they can get away with.

That sounds like a paranoid conspiracy theory.

And he's now talking about being set to average speed - surely that is an idication of what the 85th percentile judge to be right as he was arguing before?!

Phatboy317 said:

NRS said:

As I mentioned do you actually trust the 85th percentile to judge it right?

The 85th percentile is the group which doesn't differ from norms of behaviour by more than one standard deviation.

So it's the group to which, hopefully, you belong. Do you trust yourself?

You're continuing to ignore my point, do you trust 85% of the other road users to judge things right? It amuses me that there's so many complaints on here about the standard of driving, and yet so many people want all those rubbish drivers to choose their own rules.

And as for the personal comment, no, not always. I think I'm a pretty good driver, but nothing exceptional. Never had a crash (apart from into deep snow avoiding another car) or points, but I would certainly say there has been mistakes that could have meant worse.

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

There are laws that I comply with just because of the threat of enforcement.

I can't believe you just wrote that.

Are you really saying that the only reason you comply with the laws because of the threat of enforcement?
Not because of safety or other considerations, or even because it's the right thing to do, but because you're afraid of being caught?
If that's really the case then it explains a lot - you're judging others by your own abysmal standards.

vonhosen said:

Speed limits aren't unique in law in the respect you say, Sec 3 RTA is another example where no conscious effort is required to transgress & a conscious effort is required to comply.

What I meant, but didn't mention because I thought it would be self-evident, was effort above and beyond that normally required for safe driving.

Besides which. I did say "almost unique"

[Phatboy317]

NRS said:

And he's now talking about being set to average speed - surely that is an idication of what the 85th percentile judge to be right as he was arguing before?!

Do you know what the 85th percentile is?
It differs from the average in a normal distribution by one standard deviation.

NRS said:

You're continuing to ignore my point, do you trust 85% of the other road users to judge things right?

As it happens, I do.

How many drivers do you see doing something idiotic on the road on an average day? One, two, three, four, five, maybe on a bad day?
And how many hundreds of quite ordinary drivers do you see?
You tend to only take notice of the idiots.

Edited by Phatboy317 on Saturday 3rd January 19:51

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

There are laws that I comply with just because of the threat of enforcement.

I can't believe you just wrote that.

Are you really saying that the only reason you comply with the laws because of the threat of enforcement?
Not because of safety or other considerations, or even because it's the right thing to do, but because you're afraid of being caught?
If that's really the case then it explains a lot - you're judging others by your own abysmal standards.

Not the laws, as in all.
We have laws because people don't do all the things they should naturally all of the time.
Some of those laws cover extreme cases & serious offences that very few would break, some cover very minor matters that in some cases everybody breaks at sometime or other. I'm talking about the lower end of the scale (like speeding) & the threat of enforcement can help focus the mind on the latter & encourage compliance.

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Speed limits aren't unique in law in the respect you say, Sec 3 RTA is another example where no conscious effort is required to transgress & a conscious effort is required to comply.

What I meant, but didn't mention because I thought it would be self-evident, was effort above and beyond that normally required for safe driving.

Besides which. I did say "almost unique"

And there are others beyond those normally required for safe driving.

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

There are laws that I comply with just because of the threat of enforcement.

I can't believe you just wrote that.

Are you really saying that the only reason you comply with the laws because of the threat of enforcement?
Not because of safety or other considerations, or even because it's the right thing to do, but because you're afraid of being caught?
If that's really the case then it explains a lot - you're judging others by your own abysmal standards.

Not the laws, as in all.
We have laws because people don't do all the things they should naturally all of the time.
Some of those laws cover extreme cases & serious offences that very few would break, some cover very minor matters that in some cases everybody breaks at sometime or other. I'm talking about the lower end of the scale (like speeding) & the threat of enforcement can help focus the mind on the latter & encourage compliance.

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Speed limits aren't unique in law in the respect you say, Sec 3 RTA is another example where no conscious effort is required to transgress & a conscious effort is required to comply.

What I meant, but didn't mention because I thought it would be self-evident, was effort above and beyond that normally required for safe driving.

Besides which. I did say "almost unique"

And there are others beyond those normally required for safe driving.

As I said earlier, there wouldn't be a problem if the limits were set properly, so the normal competent driver would likely be complying with the limit most of the time without having to think about it at all.
If a limit is set at below the speed that most people would drive at in the absence of such limit, then you're going to have a high level of non-compliance.

[NRS]

Phatboy317 said:

NRS said:

And he's now talking about being set to average speed - surely that is an idication of what the 85th percentile judge to be right as he was arguing before?!

Do you know what the 85th percentile is?
It differs from the average in a normal distribution by one standard deviation.

NRS said:

You're continuing to ignore my point, do you trust 85% of the other road users to judge things right?

As it happens, I do.

How many drivers do you see doing something idiotic on the road on an average day? One, two, three, four, five, maybe on a bad day?
And how many hundreds of quite ordinary drivers do you see?
You tend to only take notice of the idiots.

Edited by Phatboy317 on Saturday 3rd January 19:51

It was an indication, not the actual percentile. However it's not a magical number, so why does it have to be that? It was more of a tounge in cheek thing to highlight that no speed limit value will be correct.

It makes a bit of change to hear that on PH about the lack of bad drivers! The problem is if you let everyone go off and do their own thing then many of those mistakes will result in bigger problems due to the higher speeds. The other issue is the difference in speed between road users, which I would argue would be as much if not more than the actual speed in many cases.

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

There are laws that I comply with just because of the threat of enforcement.

I can't believe you just wrote that.

Are you really saying that the only reason you comply with the laws because of the threat of enforcement?
Not because of safety or other considerations, or even because it's the right thing to do, but because you're afraid of being caught?
If that's really the case then it explains a lot - you're judging others by your own abysmal standards.

Not the laws, as in all.
We have laws because people don't do all the things they should naturally all of the time.
Some of those laws cover extreme cases & serious offences that very few would break, some cover very minor matters that in some cases everybody breaks at sometime or other. I'm talking about the lower end of the scale (like speeding) & the threat of enforcement can help focus the mind on the latter & encourage compliance.

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Speed limits aren't unique in law in the respect you say, Sec 3 RTA is another example where no conscious effort is required to transgress & a conscious effort is required to comply.

What I meant, but didn't mention because I thought it would be self-evident, was effort above and beyond that normally required for safe driving.

Besides which. I did say "almost unique"

And there are others beyond those normally required for safe driving.

As I said earlier, there wouldn't be a problem if the limits were set properly, so the normal competent driver would likely be complying with the limit most of the time without having to think about it at all.
If a limit is set at below the speed that most people would drive at in the absence of such limit, then you're going to have a high level of non-compliance.

But speed limits are a compromise of more than what the goals of the driver are so it isn't about just what they deem appropriate for safety for them (& speed limits aren't the only offence).

[mybrainhurts]

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

Stuff

You're very confusing, von.

In one breath, you say driving standards are so low that speed limits are set to control the lowest competence.

In the next breath, you say people are so switched on, they pussy foot about because they know there might be an unmarked car around.

I don't doubt you drive with this in mind but, observing others, day in, day out, I am absolutely certain the majority of drivers do not.

By the way, I, like you, am always looking over my shoulder to identify possible ambushes from behind. I really ought to be concentrating on other things, don't you think?

The standards aren't set for the lowest competence, they are set for one standard that nobody can maintain all the time, but all have demonstrated they are capable of maintaining for sufficient time & within the thresholds of competence.

By doing what I'm supposed to be doing I don't have to look out for the hidden threat, because it's no longer a threat
It's by not doing what I should be doing I would have to be on that look out.
Do what you are supposed to do & relax

I can't do that because I don't respect ridiculously low limits handed to me by incompetent MPs led by Gwyneth Dunwoody, without which I survived, was relaxed with, and not posed a threat, for many past years and which I do not have a hope in hell of getting changed with my vote.

[mybrainhurts]

singlecoil said:

mybrainhurts said:

singlecoil said:

It certainly will be if the anti-Brake mob can't come up with some logical arguments,

The implication here is that you support BRAKE. I'm very curious to know why.

The implication here is actually that I think the anti-Brake arguments that I read here most days are basically st.

For instance, Phatboy's insisting that people can't check their speed or take in the information from road signs without looking away from the road. It's completely untrue for normal people and anybody hearing that argument against speed limits and their enforcement is going to laugh and/or dismiss it as the nonsense it is.

If there is an argument against lower limits then it has to be an economic one, and that's what people who don't want lower limits should concentrate on.

Griping about cameras just sounds like naughty children who, instead of admitting they were caught fair and square one time in probably a thousand when they weren't caught, just moan and groan about the means by which they were caught.

Your waffle indicates that you know nothing about the workings of BRAKE.

[vonhosen]

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

Stuff

You're very confusing, von.

In one breath, you say driving standards are so low that speed limits are set to control the lowest competence.

In the next breath, you say people are so switched on, they pussy foot about because they know there might be an unmarked car around.

I don't doubt you drive with this in mind but, observing others, day in, day out, I am absolutely certain the majority of drivers do not.

By the way, I, like you, am always looking over my shoulder to identify possible ambushes from behind. I really ought to be concentrating on other things, don't you think?

The standards aren't set for the lowest competence, they are set for one standard that nobody can maintain all the time, but all have demonstrated they are capable of maintaining for sufficient time & within the thresholds of competence.

By doing what I'm supposed to be doing I don't have to look out for the hidden threat, because it's no longer a threat
It's by not doing what I should be doing I would have to be on that look out.
Do what you are supposed to do & relax

I can't do that because I don't respect ridiculously low limits handed to me by incompetent MPs led by Gwyneth Dunwoody, without which I survived, was relaxed with, and not posed a threat, for many past years and which I do not have a hope in hell of getting changed with my vote.

Then your choice places you in a awkward position, but it doesn't follow that the situation does so for everybody else because they make a different choice.

[Phatboy317]

Devil2575 said:

Greg66 said:

Conversely, unless he is not telling us the whole story, he speeds a lot without having accidents. So there' say disconnect between safety and speed limits, at least in his case (and I daresay other cases too).

The problem with this view is that it's a situation that involves the statistics of very big numbers. The probability of an individual having a crash and being injured or killed is very low but because there are a very large number of drivers on the road the probability that someone will be killed on any one day is very high. Even if you double the risk of an individual having a crash and being injured/killed, by say speeding all the time, that individual still isn't very likely to crash. However if everyone doubled their risk then you'd end up with twice as many KSI. On a national level killing 4000 people rather than 2000 is a big deal, even if at an individual level most people won't notice the difference. This is why the "I haven't died and I speed all the time" argument isn't especially valid.

Besides the fact that there's far too many individual circumstances, variables and confounding factors to draw reliable inferences from the national statistics - even given the large numbers involved, people are individuals, not statistics, and, likewise, accidents are individual events.

[mybrainhurts]

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

Stuff

You're very confusing, von.

In one breath, you say driving standards are so low that speed limits are set to control the lowest competence.

In the next breath, you say people are so switched on, they pussy foot about because they know there might be an unmarked car around.

I don't doubt you drive with this in mind but, observing others, day in, day out, I am absolutely certain the majority of drivers do not.

By the way, I, like you, am always looking over my shoulder to identify possible ambushes from behind. I really ought to be concentrating on other things, don't you think?

The standards aren't set for the lowest competence, they are set for one standard that nobody can maintain all the time, but all have demonstrated they are capable of maintaining for sufficient time & within the thresholds of competence.

By doing what I'm supposed to be doing I don't have to look out for the hidden threat, because it's no longer a threat
It's by not doing what I should be doing I would have to be on that look out.
Do what you are supposed to do & relax

I can't do that because I don't respect ridiculously low limits handed to me by incompetent MPs led by Gwyneth Dunwoody, without which I survived, was relaxed with, and not posed a threat, for many past years and which I do not have a hope in hell of getting changed with my vote.

Then your choice places you in a awkward position, but it doesn't follow that the situation does so for everybody else because they make a different choice.

True, but I am not alone and there are sufficient numbers of my ilk to make the situation one that ought to be remedied and ought never to have arisen.

[Countdown]

mybrainhurts said:

True, but I am not alone and there are sufficient numbers of my ilk to make the situation one that ought to be remedied and ought never to have arisen.

If you have sufficient numbers then it should be relatively straightforward to remedy the situation via the ballot box.. Like this, for exampld

http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/106383...

[mybrainhurts]

Countdown said:

mybrainhurts said:

True, but I am not alone and there are sufficient numbers of my ilk to make the situation one that ought to be remedied and ought never to have arisen.

If you have sufficient numbers then it should be relatively straightforward to remedy the situation via the ballot box.. Like this, for exampld

http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/106383...

I covered that earlier. Tired old argument. Non starter.

[singlecoil]

mybrainhurts said:

singlecoil said:

mybrainhurts said:

singlecoil said:

It certainly will be if the anti-Brake mob can't come up with some logical arguments,

The implication here is that you support BRAKE. I'm very curious to know why.

The implication here is actually that I think the anti-Brake arguments that I read here most days are basically st.

For instance, Phatboy's insisting that people can't check their speed or take in the information from road signs without looking away from the road. It's completely untrue for normal people and anybody hearing that argument against speed limits and their enforcement is going to laugh and/or dismiss it as the nonsense it is.

If there is an argument against lower limits then it has to be an economic one, and that's what people who don't want lower limits should concentrate on.

Griping about cameras just sounds like naughty children who, instead of admitting they were caught fair and square one time in probably a thousand when they weren't caught, just moan and groan about the means by which they were caught.

Your waffle indicates that you know nothing about the workings of BRAKE.

My waffle? From the forum jester?

Why would I want to know about the workings of Brake.

I get that you don't want to have a sensible discussion about the issues here, but why do you have to keep interjecting with nonsense?

[Phatboy317]

NRS said:

It was an indication, not the actual percentile. However it's not a magical number, so why does it have to be that? It was more of a tounge in cheek thing to highlight that no speed limit value will be correct.

No single speed can be 'correct' for an entire stretch of road under all conditions.

NRS said:

It makes a bit of change to hear that on PH about the lack of bad drivers! The problem is if you let everyone go off and do their own thing then many of those mistakes will result in bigger problems due to the higher speeds. The other issue is the difference in speed between road users, which I would argue would be as much if not more than the actual speed in many cases.

In my experience, people's behaviour seems remarkably consistent.

On some roads, where the limit is set at around the speed I would choose to travel at, the traffic usually flows smoothly in an orderly, well-spaced out fashion - except when slow-moving vehicles like lorries and tractors are encountered.
On the other hand, on roads where the limit is set artificially low, or when there's one or two drivers driving 5-10mph below the limit, the traffic tends to bunch up with a lot of slowing down and speeding up, and driving becomes quite stressful.

Edited by Phatboy317 on Saturday 3rd January 21:06