UK Report Shows Only 2% of Accidents Caused by Speeding

[dcb]

Big Fat F'r said:

dcb said:

All speed limits are there for political reasons,
not safety reasons.

In what way.

BFF

Governments have to been to be doing something
about road safety.

It's a complex issue, which means a complex
solution is required.

A balanced approach, using a variety of techniques,
is the way most Governments do it. Driver training,
increased police prescence, increased penalties
for drink and drug driving and other techniques are
used around the world.

UK Gov seems to be one-club golfer, and just limits speeds
excessively, to the almost complete exclusion
of all other techniques.

The fact that the numbers dying on UK roads
hasn't changed a lot for ten years is a complete
vindication that the UK solution isn't working.

I'd be a much happier person if ten per cent of the time
and money that had been spent in the UK on
limiting speed had been spent on any of the
other possible techniques for improving safety.

I've searched for years for a research paper
or document which shows that a speed limit
helped save lives. I'm still searching.

I'll take any offers, in any European language,
for any document, published and peer reviewed,
in the last fifty years.

For those interested in the science, and not
the rhetoric, there is a lot of solid reliable
information on

http://www.abd.org.uk/

and

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/

Folks who just want to make unsubstantiated and
unverifiable assertions repeatedly for
years and years on certain websites don't help
move the debate forward.

Those that listen and learn are in a much better
position.

[andmole]

dcb said:

Big Fat F'r said:

dcb said:

All speed limits are there for political reasons,
not safety reasons.

In what way.

BFF

Governments have to been to be doing something
about road safety.

It's a complex issue, which means a complex
solution is required.

A balanced approach, using a variety of techniques,
is the way most Governments do it. Driver training,
increased police prescence, increased penalties
for drink and drug driving and other techniques are
used around the world.

UK Gov seems to be one-club golfer, and just limits speeds
excessively, to the almost complete exclusion
of all other techniques.

The fact that the numbers dying on UK roads
hasn't changed a lot for ten years is a complete
vindication that the UK solution isn't working.

I'd be a much happier person if ten per cent of the time
and money that had been spent in the UK on
limiting speed had been spent on any of the
other possible techniques for improving safety.

I've searched for years for a research paper
or document which shows that a speed limit
helped save lives. I'm still searching.

I'll take any offers, in any European language,
for any document, published and peer reviewed,
in the last fifty years.

For those interested in the science, and not
the rhetoric, there is a lot of solid reliable
information on

http://www.abd.org.uk/

and

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/

Folks who just want to make unsubstantiated and
unverifiable assertions repeatedly for
years and years on certain websites don't help
move the debate forward.

Those that listen and learn are in a much better
position.

A very eloquent and well thought out post from someone who has no problem declaring what he does for a living so we can all understand how this might influence his viewpoint. Certain posters take note, I give this post a great deal of weight due to the upfront position of the poster/profile.

[Big Fat F'r]

CommanderJameson said:

Big Fat F'r said:

CommanderJameson said:

Big Fat F'r said:

dcb said:

All speed limits are there for political reasons,
not safety reasons.

In what way.

BFF

It's more politically and organisationally expedient to prosecute drivers who are over an arbitrary speed limit than it is to prosecute drivers who are actually doing something wrong.

Hence, speed limits are a political tool.

In what way. Yes, some drivers get prosecuted for exceeding limits that many agree with (you don't, fair enough, but many do).

Why and how is it a political tool. Expediency does not make it a political tool. So what does, and to what end.

BFF

It's politically much easier to say "we are going to criminalise behaviour X in the hope of preventing outcome Y" - especially when criminalising behaviour X is very amenable to automation, very easy to enforce, and just different enough from dealing with behaviour Z, which is the actual problem behaviour, that no-one notices. The political bit comes from not dealing with behaviour Z - in this case, bad driving - because doing that would mean that a lot of voters would receive an unpleasant wake-up call (i.e. three points and sixty quid) that their driving is shit. And let's face it, who'd vote for THAT?

And it looks like you're doing something to deal with undesired outcome Y! Bonus!

Edited by CommanderJameson on Monday 1st October 17:36

I hear whay you're saying, I'm just not sure it's a political tool.

Speed limits were around before easy automation. They were enforced 'a plenty' before easy automation.

Many people would be happy to see certain cameras removed, if anyone could show how to deal with those drivers that don't excercise the restraint that you do (a realistic solution, not this smokescreen of 'lets have more BiB on the streets'). There are drivers every day that go too fast for the area they are in. Whether or not you do so is immaterial; some do, and many folk want a way of slowing these drivers down. Specific cameras in specific areas do this.

Perhaps by acknowledging this problem, and coming up with a real solution to it, you could start to address having incorrectly located cameras. By seeking to remove all cameras, and all limits, you simply deny that a problem exists, when many others experience it day in day out.

That ultimately is why I think you will fail, which is a shame, as there is probably middle ground that could be reached.

BFF

Edited by Big Fat F'r on Monday 1st October 18:34

[fluffnik]

Big Fat F'r said:

CommanderJameson said:

It's more politically and organisationally expedient to prosecute drivers who are over an arbitrary speed limit than it is to prosecute drivers who are actually doing something wrong.

Hence, speed limits are a political tool.

In what way. Yes, some drivers get prosecuted for exceeding limits that many agree with (you don't, fair enough, but many do).

Popular != just

If speed limits were set on a verifiable technical basis it might just about be possible to enforce them justly...

But they're not, they're arbitrary numbers on sticks, often chosen by politicians the demonstrate that Something Is Being Done to the unthinking tabloid reading hoards who bray Something Must Be Done.

And that makes persecuting those who brake them oppressive, no matter how popular they might be.

Big Fat F'r said:

Why and how is it a political tool. Expediency does not make it a political tool. So what does, and to what end.

It is a political tool because limits can be set, at tiny up-front cost, with the pretense of Doing Something Useful without requiring any intellectual capacity whatsoever.

It was the expensive Armco, not the cheap, tawdry 70mph limit that made the Motorways safer...

[Big Fat F'r]

fluffnik said:

Big Fat F'r said:

CommanderJameson said:

It's more politically and organisationally expedient to prosecute drivers who are over an arbitrary speed limit than it is to prosecute drivers who are actually doing something wrong.

Hence, speed limits are a political tool.

In what way. Yes, some drivers get prosecuted for exceeding limits that many agree with (you don't, fair enough, but many do).

Popular != just

If speed limits were set on a verifiable technical basis it might just about be possible to enforce them justly...

But they're not, they're arbitrary numbers on sticks, often chosen by politicians the demonstrate that Something Is Being Done to the unthinking tabloid reading hoards who bray Something Must Be Done.

And that makes persecuting those who brake them oppressive, no matter how popular they might be.

Big Fat F'r said:

Why and how is it a political tool. Expediency does not make it a political tool. So what does, and to what end.

It is a political tool because limits can be set, at tiny up-front cost, with the pretense of Doing Something Useful without requiring any intellectual capacity whatsoever.

It was the expensive Armco, not the cheap, tawdry 70mph limit that made the Motorways safer...

They can be set that way. It doesn't mean they have been. But your insistence, and refusal to see any effective use, means you are destined to join the ranks of the disapointed, along with the Commander.

Unfortunately, I believe you will be dead, buried and rotting in your grave before there is any chance of the blanket removal of speed limits - in fact, no chance. Hopefully before then, someone will provide the data that shows what damage has been done by this insistence that everything about limits and cameras (allowing no alternative whatsoever) is so wrong.

The extremes on both sides are damaging road safety. Those that insist that all limits and automated enforcement are wrong and political with no benefits at all are as guilty of holding back improvements as those who insist that all limits and automated enforcement everywhere, without exception, are the only thing to be concerned with.

BFF

[fluffnik]

Big Fat F'r said:

fluffnik said:

It is a political tool because limits can be set, at tiny up-front cost, with the pretense of Doing Something Useful without requiring any intellectual capacity whatsoever.

It was the expensive Armco, not the cheap, tawdry 70mph limit that made the Motorways safer...

They can be set that way. It doesn't mean they have been. But your insistence, and refusal to see any effective use, means you are destined to join the ranks of the disapointed, along with the Commander.

No number painted on a stick can be appropriate in all circumstances.

Even if they were effective, which is far from established, they are philosophically objectionable, like all arbitrary laws, as they would do harm to those who have done no harm.

Big Fat F'r said:

Unfortunately, I believe you will be dead, buried and rotting in your grave before there is any chance of the blanket removal of speed limits - in fact, no chance. Hopefully before then, someone will provide the data that shows what damage has been done by this insistence that everything about limits and cameras (allowing no alternative whatsoever) is so wrong.

I'm hopeful that the authoritarian state which imposes blanket speed limits, amongst so many other unpleasant and unnecessary arbitrary laws, will be long gone before my freeze dried corpse is vibrated to dust.

I have no problem with speed being used as evidence of recklessness, which it often could be, even at speeds below the current arbitrary numbers...

Big Fat F'r said:

The extremes on both sides are damaging road safety. Those that insist that all limits and automated enforcement are wrong and political with no benefits at all are as guilty of holding back improvements as those who insist that all limits and automated enforcement everywhere, without exception, are the only thing to be concerned with.

Nope. Removing limits and automated enforcement IS the improvement.

Maintaining the parasitic little empires of the racketeering oppressors is the extremist act.

[esselte]

Big Fat F'r said:

Speed limits were around before easy automation. They were enforced 'a plenty' before easy automation.

Are there stats to show people booked for speeding pre and posts gatso/specs/etc?

[Big Fat F'r]

fluffnik said:

Big Fat F'r said:

fluffnik said:

It is a political tool because limits can be set, at tiny up-front cost, with the pretense of Doing Something Useful without requiring any intellectual capacity whatsoever.

It was the expensive Armco, not the cheap, tawdry 70mph limit that made the Motorways safer...

They can be set that way. It doesn't mean they have been. But your insistence, and refusal to see any effective use, means you are destined to join the ranks of the disapointed, along with the Commander.

No number painted on a stick can be appropriate in all circumstances.

Depends how you define appropriate. If you mean a compromise, using a simple to understand, easily applied solution, then yes, it is appropriate. If you mean that it should somehow identify the one speed that is 'safe' then no, it's not appropriate, and has never meant to be taken that way.

fluffnik said:

Even if they were effective, which is far from established, they are philosophically objectionable, like all arbitrary laws, as they would do harm to those who have done no harm.

We can't even get agreement on whether or not they are arbitrary. What chance on the philosophically objectionable. Thats leaving aside your definition of doing harm to someone is asking them to abide by a law there to reduce risk, (just like all the others mentioned on here previously).

fluffnik said:

Big Fat F'r said:

Unfortunately, I believe you will be dead, buried and rotting in your grave before there is any chance of the blanket removal of speed limits - in fact, no chance. Hopefully before then, someone will provide the data that shows what damage has been done by this insistence that everything about limits and cameras (allowing no alternative whatsoever) is so wrong.

I'm hopeful that the authoritarian state which imposes blanket speed limits, amongst so many other unpleasant and unnecessary arbitrary laws, will be long gone before my freeze dried corpse is vibrated to dust.

Then you will be sorely disapointed on that point as well.

fluffnik said:

I have no problem with speed being used as evidence of recklessness, which it often could be, even at speeds below the current arbitrary numbers....

no one on here who supports speed limits and automatic enforcement is against recklessness charges at low speed where appropriate. They are different sides of the same coin.

fluffnik said:

Big Fat F'r said:

The extremes on both sides are damaging road safety. Those that insist that all limits and automated enforcement are wrong and political with no benefits at all are as guilty of holding back improvements as those who insist that all limits and automated enforcement everywhere, without exception, are the only thing to be concerned with.

Nope. Removing limits and automated enforcement IS the improvement.

Certainly for you, not for others.

fluffnik said:

Maintaining the parasitic little empires of the racketeering oppressors is the extremist act.

True, but who defines which is the Empire, and who are the parasites.

BFF

[Big Fat F'r]

esselte said:

Big Fat F'r said:

Speed limits were around before easy automation. They were enforced 'a plenty' before easy automation.

Are there stats to show people booked for speeding pre and posts gatso/specs/etc?

Yes.

Have they been collated and presented in a useful format....probably not.

The truth is out there, lets go diggin'.

BFF

[GPSHead]

Big Fat F'r said:

fluffnik said:

Maintaining the parasitic little empires of the racketeering oppressors is the extremist act.

True, but who defines which is the Empire, and who are the parasites.

Oh puh-LEEZE. Whatever you think about speed limits and cameras, can you honestly say that you believe that SCPs are genuinely concerned about making the roads safer, rather than sustaining their existence by cherry-picking statistics and (until recently) taking as much of people's money as possible?

Honestly? Have you ever heard a SCP manager admit that they've had a bad year, and that cameras may not be the most appropriate solution after all? Why do you think SCPs are shrouded in secrecy and that they continually have to be forced to talk using the FoIA (and even then they often don't play ball)? If you were an SCP manager, would you do anything different?

[900T-R]

Big Fat F'r said:

The truth is out there, lets go diggin'.

BFF

For The Netherlands I can quite categorally state that before automated enforcement (and separating 'mild' traffic offenses from the judicial system so that they can be dealt with'in a purely administrative fashion just like paying your gas and electricity bills) the speeding fines per year/cars registered ratio was somewhat lower than 1.2/1... How many traffic officers would've been needed to write out 8.9 million speeding tickets?

[10 Pence Short]

Now the number of cameras has stabalised, it should be possible to get some comparable figures over the next few years of how many offences are detected.

If the number remains the same or increases, then surely this demonstrates that cameras are not effective in reducing speeds?

[safespeed]

Big Fat F'r said:

esselte said:

Big Fat F'r said:

Speed limits were around before easy automation. They were enforced 'a plenty' before easy automation.

Are there stats to show people booked for speeding pre and posts gatso/specs/etc?

Yes.

Have they been collated and presented in a useful format....probably not.

The truth is out there, lets go diggin'.

BFF

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/police.html

Of course since that was prepared, speed camera offences have gone WAY up.

[Big Fat F'r]

GPSHead said:

Big Fat F'r said:

fluffnik said:

Maintaining the parasitic little empires of the racketeering oppressors is the extremist act.

True, but who defines which is the Empire, and who are the parasites.

Oh puh-LEEZE. Whatever you think about speed limits and cameras, can you honestly say that you believe that SCPs are genuinely concerned about making the roads safer, rather than sustaining their existence by cherry-picking statistics and (until recently) taking as much of people's money as possible?

Honestly? Have you ever heard a SCP manager admit that they've had a bad year, and that cameras may not be the most appropriate solution after all? Why do you think SCPs are shrouded in secrecy and that they continually have to be forced to talk using the FoIA (and even then they often don't play ball)? If you were an SCP manager, would you do anything different?

It was more of a philosophical point.

BFF

[fluffnik]

900T-R said:

Big Fat F'r said:

The truth is out there, lets go diggin'.

BFF

For The Netherlands I can quite categorally state that before automated enforcement (and separating 'mild' traffic offenses from the judicial system so that they can be dealt with'in a purely administrative fashion just like paying your gas and electricity bills) the speeding fines per year/cars registered ratio was somewhat lower than 1.2/1... How many traffic officers would've been needed to write out 8.9 million speeding tickets?

You folks need to sack your government too!

[900T-R]

fluffnik said:

You folks need to sack your government too!

Where would we go then, seeing as the policy is backed by every vaguely electable party from the far right to the loony left? The automated traffic fine industry has proven a worthwhile cash generator for governments of any colour - it's a license to print money basically. Every local or regional police force has a target for traffic fines which gets higher every year and is part of the perfomance assessment that determines its funding. Heck, the Christian parties in the current govenment want free school books for all - guess how they want to fund it? Right, by raising traffic fines.

[fluffnik]

Big Fat F'r said:

fluffnik said:

No number painted on a stick can be appropriate in all circumstances.

Depends how you define appropriate. If you mean a compromise, using a simple to understand, easily applied solution, then yes, it is appropriate. If you mean that it should somehow identify the one speed that is 'safe' then no, it's not appropriate, and has never meant to be taken that way.

By appropriate I mean neither so low that the utility of the road is compromised nor so high as to encourage - because, like it or not, limits are treated as targets too - excessive speed.

Numbers on sticks almost always fail these tests, usually simultaneously...

Big Fat F'r said:

fluffnik said:

Even if they were effective, which is far from established, they are philosophically objectionable, like all arbitrary laws, as they would do harm to those who have done no harm.

We can't even get agreement on whether or not they are arbitrary. What chance on the philosophically objectionable. Thats leaving aside your definition of doing harm to someone is asking them to abide by a law there to reduce risk, (just like all the others mentioned on here previously).

They are by definition arbitrary.

...and all that arbitrary laws reduce is justice.

Big Fat F'r said:

fluffnik said:

I'm hopeful that the authoritarian state which imposes blanket speed limits, amongst so many other unpleasant and unnecessary arbitrary laws, will be long gone before my freeze dried corpse is vibrated to dust.

Then you will be sorely disapointed on that point as well.

That's not my intention.

...and anyway, puncturing balloons is fun.

Big Fat F'r said:

fluffnik said:

Nope. Removing limits and automated enforcement IS the improvement.

Certainly for you, not for others.

For me, and everyone but the parasites of the speed enforcement racket.

Big Fat F'r said:

fluffnik said:

Maintaining the parasitic little empires of the racketeering oppressors is the extremist act.

True, but who defines which is the Empire, and who are the parasites.

The parasites are the likes of SCPs which neither make nor do anything of value but feed on the enterprise of others, the little empires are conflations of their own self importance.

If all the SCPs vanished tomorrow would anyone notice?

...apart from the dole clercks of course.