Alternative to speed limits and cameras?

Alternative to speed limits and cameras?

Author
Discussion

Esceptico

Original Poster:

7,334 posts

108 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
There seems to be a huge amount of bhing on PH about speed limits and cameras. But does anyone have any sensible suggestions for a different system?

Is there anyone that believes we should have no speed limits - and if yes why?

Personally I don't trust the average person (or at least a significant minority of drivers) to have the ability nor mindset to always drive at a safe speed for the conditions. So even though under the right circumstances it could be perfectlly safe to drive 70 in what is now a 30 I accept that 30 limits are necessary. I think we could raise the speed limit on motorways but overall I think the limits are not too bad.

If you accept that speed limits are a necessary evil then you also have to accept that they should be enforced (otherwise they would be ignored). And penalties have to be linked to how much or how often you exceed the limits. One could argue about the detail but that seems to be covered by the current UK system. In Switzerland they had a different system. Low grade speeding (generally up to about 20 mph over) are treated with fixed fines (that increase as you get closer to the 20 mph) and thereafter mandatory bans and income related fines. More than 45 mph over and you risk prison. When you consider that their A and B roads have 80 kmh limits so you only need to be 140 kmh (about 85 mph) then you can see that prison is a real risk if you have a fast car or bike.

The current system in the UK - where cameras are painted yellow and even mobile police units are in marked vans or with police in HiVis seems to give UK speeders a pretty good chance of avoiding detection. I'm not sure how people can argue this is unfair. A more logical approach would be like in Switzerland where the cameras and police are usually hidden so you have no way of spotting them. That leads to paranoia because you know that you could be caught almost anywhere at any time. Great for stopping speeding but horrid for driving.

People argue that cameras should only be at accident black spots but effectively what they are saying is that speeding should not be policed where they speed - a speeding nimbyism. But isn't that like not having limits at all? A lot of people on here complain about driving standards of the average person - so would you be happy for them to feel free to drive as fast as they want, as well as as badly as they want?

CanAm

9,114 posts

271 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
One word. Isle of Man confused

sidekickdmr

5,065 posts

205 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
CanAm said:
One word. Isle of Man confused
A) Thats 3 words

B) They dont have motorways or vast wide stright roads, so the landscape acts as a natural speed limit for the majority (unless you are a nutter or stupid)

Richie Slow

7,499 posts

163 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
CanAm said:
One word. Isle of Man confused
That's Darwinism in the extreme.

I was going to suggest that banning motorbikes would reduce road deaths by 20%, but then I thought about it and decided that wouldn't be the case. They'd be nutters in cars. smile

xjay1337

15,966 posts

117 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
I can't see why we can't have some sections of derestricted motorways. M4 for example from Slough from 10 to 11 for example is almost straight and completely lit.

If we had some areas of complete derestriction I don't think people would kick up such a fuss when you are asked to stick to 70 in some other areas.

Lowering nationals to 50 seem stupid IMO but generally most 30s are pretty well placed.

speedking31

3,543 posts

135 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
A super-licence that allows you to exceed the posted speed limit by a certain amount in good conditions, e.g. 60 in a 50, 100 in a 70. Subject to an additional test and re-test to show you are an enthusiast. Then I thought "I've been doing that for many years and its cost me a lot less than the cost of an additional licensing system would be" silly

KevinCorvetteC6

11,553 posts

279 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
There is no case for cameras as they can only 'police' one issue - speed in excess of the arbitrary limit. Since speeding is only the cause of a very small percentage of accidents (note, cause not contributory to effect) they are focussed on the wrong cause of accidents. Far bigger causes are incompetence, lack of concentration, excess speed for the conditions, tailgating, incorrect lane use, dangerous driving. All of those can only be policed by real live policemen.

rxe

6,700 posts

102 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
The problem with the limits is the most drivers have less and less opportunity to use their brains about driving at a certain speed. You reach a point where "speed limit or less = safe" which isn't true, and results in speed limits being continually lowered until it is safe.

Its pretty obvious that speed limits are needed, and they need to be enforced (or they will be ignored). It is not clear that a speed limit is an unchanging thing. Take the A40(M) out of London. When it is busy, 40 is fine, indeed most drivers would be only too pleased to be doing 40. Outside peak hours, 60 is safe. When the road is quiet, 70 - 80 is safe. This would give people a chance to make decisions in a reasonably safe environment - there must be a fair number of people around that road who have literally never been in a position where they think "yeah, I'm allowed to do 60, but I won't because that would be dangerous".

otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
Speed limits are a very blunt instrument - especially when subject to mindless enforcement.

They work well in areas where there is relatively little variation in what is a reasonable speed for the conditions, both in terms of time and space. Largely, built up areas where people live. They work less well in places where the maximum appropriate speed varies from day to day and mile to mile.

They are not always set for reasons of safety - there may also be considerations of emissions and noise. It does not seem fair to penalise antisocial behaviour and dangerous behaviour equally severely.

Esceptico

Original Poster:

7,334 posts

108 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
xjay1337 said:
I can't see why we can't have some sections of derestricted motorways. M4 for example from Slough from 10 to 11 for example is almost straight and completely lit.

If we had some areas of complete derestriction I don't think people would kick up such a fuss when you are asked to stick to 70 in some other areas.

Lowering nationals to 50 seem stupid IMO but generally most 30s are pretty well placed.
My personal experience in Germany is that they don't obey the limit in the derestricted sections. What I've found is that you get to a derestricted stretch and zoom off, leaving people behind you but at the next restricted section if you slow down to the limit they catch up and pass you...until the next derestricted where you get pass them again (maybe a lot later if there is traffic or slow vehicles overtaking each other). Much as I've enjoyed driving on the Autobahn I've found that my average speed is pretty slow given that you can drive as fast as you want at times. Much quicker on French toll roads - can't do more than 80-85 without risk of being nicked but you can pretty much keep at that speed most of the journey (again on my experience of driving between the UK and Switzerland).

Esceptico

Original Poster:

7,334 posts

108 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
KevinCorvetteC6 said:
There is no case for cameras as they can only 'police' one issue - speed in excess of the arbitrary limit. Since speeding is only the cause of a very small percentage of accidents (note, cause not contributory to effect) they are focussed on the wrong cause of accidents. Far bigger causes are incompetence, lack of concentration, excess speed for the conditions, tailgating, incorrect lane use, dangerous driving. All of those can only be policed by real live policemen.
Why is it an either or? You could do both. If you don't police limits then they will be ignored - is that what you are arguing for? No limits?


Esceptico

Original Poster:

7,334 posts

108 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
otolith said:
Speed limits are a very blunt instrument - especially when subject to mindless enforcement.

They work well in areas where there is relatively little variation in what is a reasonable speed for the conditions, both in terms of time and space. Largely, built up areas where people live. They work less well in places where the maximum appropriate speed varies from day to day and mile to mile.

They are not always set for reasons of safety - there may also be considerations of emissions and noise. It does not seem fair to penalise antisocial behaviour and dangerous behaviour equally severely.
I don't disagree with a lot of what you write but what is the alternative? Unless you have some way of constantly varying the limit based on traffic levels and weather/road conditions then any limit is going to have to be lower than it would be for above average conditions.

The current system is not perfect but a lot better than other very easy to implement alternatives such as:

- hidden speed traps like in other countries
- GPS controlled speed limiters in all cars so you can't exceed the posted limits (although the car industry and PHers are against this I expect that it would get support amongst a large number of the general public who see cars as a way of getting from A to B).
- black boxes in all cars that record speed - which could be checked either after an accident or at random by a policeman
- I suspect that information on our mobile phones could be used to check whether we had broken the speed limit

A few yellow cameras, the odd van (usually in the same places) and coppers in HiVis (again in the same spots) seems like a minor inconvenience compared to what they could do.

Truffs

266 posts

137 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
Esceptico said:
Why is it an either or? You could do both. If you don't police limits then they will be ignored - is that what you are arguing for? No limits?
No he is saying that speedcameras are a one trick pony.

There are many thousands of people who are exempt from speeding and in general I don`t have a problem with that, I do think that technology could be better employed in policing and raising standards rather than just speeding. There are lots of people who are a menace because of how they drive and they are not spotted by a speed camera.

My own take is that speedcameras and policing of motorways will become obsolete when driverless cars take off. Speeding will soon be old fashioned and not a revenue raiser. What will happen then?

BertBert

18,953 posts

210 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
I'm ok with speed limits and enforcement (by camera) if they were used as broad risk reduction measures as they used to be. The problem is that that have turned into precise limits. This road is a 40, this a 50 that's what should go.

Just have two limits urban and NSL.

Bert

cmaguire

3,589 posts

108 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
BertBert said:
I'm ok with speed limits and enforcement (by camera) if they were used as broad risk reduction measures as they used to be. The problem is that that have turned into precise limits. This road is a 40, this a 50 that's what should go.

Just have two limits urban and NSL.

Bert
30 and 120?

otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
Esceptico said:
I don't disagree with a lot of what you write but what is the alternative? Unless you have some way of constantly varying the limit based on traffic levels and weather/road conditions then any limit is going to have to be lower than it would be for above average conditions.
Ideal world? Don't let anyone have a driving licence unless they are sufficiently well trained always to be able to work out an appropriate speed themselves. Get rid of extra-urban limits altogether. Obviously not a practicable solution.

Better world - make exceeding the speed limit a material fact in a charge of driving dangerously or antisocially, not an absolute offence in itself. Also not going to happen, too expensive.

Real world - focus speeding enforcement on where and when speeding is most problematic, rather than where and when it is most prevalent.

CanAm

9,114 posts

271 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
sidekickdmr said:
CanAm said:
One word. Isle of Man confused
A) Thats 3 words

B) They dont have motorways or vast wide stright roads, so the landscape acts as a natural speed limit for the majority (unless you are a nutter or stupid)
A. Really? Hence smiley !!!!
B. Apart from the motor bike nutters during TT weeks, the locals seem to cope OK. As did we on the mainland until 1967 (or thereabouts). "the landscape acts as a natural speed limit for the majority" ...as it does here also most of the time. How many drivers exceed 60 (or even 45!!) mph other than on dual carriageways?

tapereel

1,860 posts

115 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
KevinCorvetteC6 said:
There is no case for cameras as they can only 'police' one issue - speed in excess of the arbitrary limit. Since speeding is only the cause of a very small percentage of accidents (note, cause not contributory to effect) they are focussed on the wrong cause of accidents. Far bigger causes are incompetence, lack of concentration, excess speed for the conditions, tailgating, incorrect lane use, dangerous driving. All of those can only be policed by real live policemen.
Cameras don't always have a single use, they have been used to prosecute the following:
  1. excess speed for the conditions
  2. tailgating
  3. incorrect lane use
  4. dangerous driving
  5. no seat belts
  6. mobile phone use
  7. other stuff too numerous to mention
Oh! were some of those on your list?

tapereel

1,860 posts

115 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
Esceptico said:
There seems to be a huge amount of bhing on PH about speed limits and cameras. But does anyone have any sensible suggestions for a different system?

Is there anyone that believes we should have no speed limits - and if yes why?

Personally I don't trust the average person (or at least a significant minority of drivers) to have the ability nor mindset to always drive at a safe speed for the conditions. So even though under the right circumstances it could be perfectlly safe to drive 70 in what is now a 30 I accept that 30 limits are necessary. I think we could raise the speed limit on motorways but overall I think the limits are not too bad.

If you accept that speed limits are a necessary evil then you also have to accept that they should be enforced (otherwise they would be ignored). And penalties have to be linked to how much or how often you exceed the limits. One could argue about the detail but that seems to be covered by the current UK system. In Switzerland they had a different system. Low grade speeding (generally up to about 20 mph over) are treated with fixed fines (that increase as you get closer to the 20 mph) and thereafter mandatory bans and income related fines. More than 45 mph over and you risk prison. When you consider that their A and B roads have 80 kmh limits so you only need to be 140 kmh (about 85 mph) then you can see that prison is a real risk if you have a fast car or bike.

The current system in the UK - where cameras are painted yellow and even mobile police units are in marked vans or with police in HiVis seems to give UK speeders a pretty good chance of avoiding detection. I'm not sure how people can argue this is unfair. A more logical approach would be like in Switzerland where the cameras and police are usually hidden so you have no way of spotting them. That leads to paranoia because you know that you could be caught almost anywhere at any time. Great for stopping speeding but horrid for driving.

People argue that cameras should only be at accident black spots but effectively what they are saying is that speeding should not be policed where they speed - a speeding nimbyism. But isn't that like not having limits at all? A lot of people on here complain about driving standards of the average person - so would you be happy for them to feel free to drive as fast as they want, as well as as badly as they want?
This is a well reasoned question however I think that I can write the rest of the thread before anyone else posts an answer for you; I see above it is well on the way. smile
You may well have brought your question to a forum where you will receive few, if any, worthwhile or qualified answers and suggestions to your proposal. What you are about to receive has already been written here many 100's of times and on those occasions what was written was mostly complete guff. Good luck.

BertBert

18,953 posts

210 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
Perfect!

cmaguire said:
BertBert said:
I'm ok with speed limits and enforcement (by camera) if they were used as broad risk reduction measures as they used to be. The problem is that that have turned into precise limits. This road is a 40, this a 50 that's what should go.

Just have two limits urban and NSL.

Bert
30 and 120?