Alternative to speed limits and cameras?
Discussion
vonhosen said:
Ken Figenus said:
Speed limits are essential and completely appropriate, even if excessive speed is a factor only in a tiny proportion of accidents. However you do the UK motorist a huge disservice when you say you wouldn't trust them to go at an appropriate speed. This has been one of the key ways of actually setting limits in the past and was based on the 85th percentile - the 'natural speed' that 85% of motorists travel at on a section of road.
The 85th percentile is not 'the natural speed that 85% of motorists travel at'.This is of course in direct conflict of current central government policy for indirect tax revenue by whatever means necessary. The problem is that many consider the safety camera partnership as nothing more than a gigantic parasitic organisation generating nothing but misery for the general population and sucking revenue out of local towns and villages across the country for petty speeding infractions.
Traffic police observing and stopping hazardous motorists on the road is the answer to reducing deaths on the roads but that costs money, whilst scamera vans generate income from petty speeding fines, and that is all that government seem to care about rather than in actually saving lives from dangerous drivers. Is a pretty shameful state of affairs but unfortunately this is what happens when we have weak generations of politicians in power looking out for their own interests instead of the interests of the people of the country.
rich888 said:
vonhosen said:
Ken Figenus said:
Speed limits are essential and completely appropriate, even if excessive speed is a factor only in a tiny proportion of accidents. However you do the UK motorist a huge disservice when you say you wouldn't trust them to go at an appropriate speed. This has been one of the key ways of actually setting limits in the past and was based on the 85th percentile - the 'natural speed' that 85% of motorists travel at on a section of road.
The 85th percentile is not 'the natural speed that 85% of motorists travel at'.85% drive at or below that speed, not 85% at it.
It's not determining the 'natural' speed of drivers either if a limit is already in place, because limits affect people's choice of speed even in drivers who don't strictly obey limits.
ie I might drive at 95 in a 70 because I know if I top the 100 I'm far more likely to get an immediate ban if caught. If there were no limit however I might do 160.
otolith said:
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.
The limit in my village was recently lowered. I queried my local councilor as to the rationale behind it and was told:"the Parish Council asked some years ago about getting the speed along XXXXX Lane reduced, Cheshire County Council was in place at that time and decided that a 40mph was correct, then unbeknown to us all a short time after they reduced that to 30mph"
Essentially the reduction came as a result of NIMBYISM.
Never saw any enforcement in the 3 years leading up to the reduction. Now there is a police car parked at the end of my lane at least two or three times a month.
0000 said:
Maybe, but the rest of your post was the debating equivalent of just shouting "NO, YOU'RE WRONG". He saved himself some hassle.
Strange that you both posted many times in response to other things I've written. Why didn't you save yourselves the hassle and not respond at all to this thread? 0000 said:
The full post was:"I agree, if the laws truly are unjust eg apartheid or the Nuremberg laws or the civil rights movement in the US.
Are you equating speeding with those cases of injustice? "
I wasn't intentionally comparing anything to Hitler or the Nazis. I was listing some famous, historical cases of injustice. I was using those cases to show the ridiculousness of claiming that not being allowed to drive as fast as you like is somehow an important infraction of civil rights that would justify breaking the law. Which is clearly ridiculous. You might as well claim that food safety laws infringe the rights of people to work in an unhygienic way. It seems to me there are virtually no laws that couldn't be attacked - and therefore in your view ignored - because someone sees an "ethical" problem with them.
Driving isn't an exact science. To put an exact limit on how fast we can drive is reducing the amount people think and thinking is a very important part of driving. The issue with speed is that it is very easy to measure so it gets measured a lot. What is more important is that people watch what they are doing and think.
The blame culture we have in the country is very much to blame for the reducing in speed limits and relentless prosecution of people exceeding arbitrary limits. There is a considerable amount of noise about pedestrian safety, but most of this noise is about users of vehicles taking the blame in any indecent involving pedestrians and cyclists (I am both). You only have to look at the opinions of the masses when a cyclist is run over by an LGV turning left. What sort of person cuts up the side of a vehicle that big? Once in a while it needs to be said publicly that the person that got killed or injured was entirely to blame, no action will be taken on the 3rd party and people should be more careful rather than something must be done/if it saves one life etc.
There is some truth that if the speed limit is properly sign posted and people drive past a camera above it they get what they deserve, but most speed limits now are uncomfortably low and to my mind it is not in the public interest to prosecute people for exceeding them and more than if the sign said LISTEN TO RADIO 2 and they had another station on. It just smacks of trying to trip people up.
We have another phenomenon of on the one hand people complaining about (rightly so) congestion and on the other the same people wanting their road effectively blocked up to stop/discourage other using it, usually with speed humps and other traffic calming measures. The last thing traffic needs in the country is calming, it very much needs speeding up.
Speed cameras and lower limits should be the very last resort and only used in exceptional circumstances.
The blame culture we have in the country is very much to blame for the reducing in speed limits and relentless prosecution of people exceeding arbitrary limits. There is a considerable amount of noise about pedestrian safety, but most of this noise is about users of vehicles taking the blame in any indecent involving pedestrians and cyclists (I am both). You only have to look at the opinions of the masses when a cyclist is run over by an LGV turning left. What sort of person cuts up the side of a vehicle that big? Once in a while it needs to be said publicly that the person that got killed or injured was entirely to blame, no action will be taken on the 3rd party and people should be more careful rather than something must be done/if it saves one life etc.
There is some truth that if the speed limit is properly sign posted and people drive past a camera above it they get what they deserve, but most speed limits now are uncomfortably low and to my mind it is not in the public interest to prosecute people for exceeding them and more than if the sign said LISTEN TO RADIO 2 and they had another station on. It just smacks of trying to trip people up.
We have another phenomenon of on the one hand people complaining about (rightly so) congestion and on the other the same people wanting their road effectively blocked up to stop/discourage other using it, usually with speed humps and other traffic calming measures. The last thing traffic needs in the country is calming, it very much needs speeding up.
Speed cameras and lower limits should be the very last resort and only used in exceptional circumstances.
Willy Nilly said:
Driving isn't an exact science. To put an exact limit on how fast we can drive is reducing the amount people think and thinking is a very important part of driving. The issue with speed is that it is very easy to measure so it gets measured a lot. What is more important is that people watch what they are doing and think.
Thinking? Are you serious? Most of the people in cars today are also the types of people who spend hours on Facebook, and who watch the X factor. And you are asking them to think? You might as well as them to levitate.Speed limits exist not to stop PHers having fun and not to prevent accidents (although they do of course contribute to that) or make roads safe, or to provide fodder for Digby's villains to profit from. They are there to make accidents less serious if and when they occur and to provide more avoidance time than would be available if people drove at the speed they chose
vonhosen said:
robinessex said:
The late L.J.K.Setright, probably the best motoring writer ever, once said there should bo only one motoring offence, dangerous driving.
So no inconsiderate driving, no careless driving, no no insurance, no driving other than in accordance with your licence, no drink/drug driving?I would suggest that if you are drunk, on drugs, driving without insurance you can be considered a danger to others, therefore come under said offence.
Some time ago dad told me of a system he came across somewhere in Europe (I can't remember which country) for speeding in residential/built ups areas, which we agreed made more sense than speed cameras. There were cameras in place measuring your speed, but instead of ticketing you a traffic light past the camera in question turned red for (say) two minutes if you were speeding. Ignore the red light and then you'd be penalised. Think about it, it's really clever; speed, and your journey shall actually take you longer!
I agree that our motorway speed limits are a nonsense in modern times. They were set in a period of Morris Minors and Ford Anglias, things have moved on somewhat.
Fermit The Krog and Sarah Sexy said:
vonhosen said:
robinessex said:
The late L.J.K.Setright, probably the best motoring writer ever, once said there should bo only one motoring offence, dangerous driving.
So no inconsiderate driving, no careless driving, no no insurance, no driving other than in accordance with your licence, no drink/drug driving?I would suggest that if you are drunk, on drugs, driving without insurance you can be considered a danger to others, therefore come under said offence.
Some time ago dad told me of a system he came across somewhere in Europe (I can't remember which country) for speeding in residential/built ups areas, which we agreed made more sense than speed cameras. There were cameras in place measuring your speed, but instead of ticketing you a traffic light past the camera in question turned red for (say) two minutes if you were speeding. Ignore the red light and then you'd be penalised. Think about it, it's really clever; speed, and your journey shall actually take you longer!
I tried to correct your sloppy formatting but am not sure if I put the missing end quote in the right place.
Fermit The Krog and Sarah Sexy said:
vonhosen said:
robinessex said:
The late L.J.K.Setright, probably the best motoring writer ever, once said there should bo only one motoring offence, dangerous driving.
So no inconsiderate driving, no careless driving, no no insurance, no driving other than in accordance with your licence, no drink/drug driving?Another reason is to dissuade socially unacceptable behaviours (unacceptable risky behaviours or unacceptable for other reasons) & be a able to deal with them before the danger is actually present, rather than waiting until the danger is present (Prevention better than dealing with after the fact).
Digby said:
4rephill said:
As I understand the US system in some cities, the traffic lights in are timed so that when they turn green, if you travel at the speed limit then you can hit all of the lights on green.
Now go and Google the traffic light timings scandal in the US. Alterations to amber times to fine more drivers without making the knowledge of the changes available.Cameras and cash, yet again.
And before anyone jumps in with suggestions of not jumping lights, the majority of fines were dished out for those stopped and waiting to turn and not those who choose to fly through and 'take a chance' with their lives.
If you want to make an argument and use that as you're supporting evidence, you go look it up and then post it on here!
I'm not your f
king lacky!RobinOakapple said:
Speed limits exist not to stop PHers having fun and not to prevent accidents (although they do of course contribute to that) or make roads safe, or to provide fodder for Digby's villains to profit from. They are there to make accidents less serious if and when they occur and to provide more avoidance time than would be available if people drove at the speed they chose
Most accidents aren't serious, but even minor accidents are an utter pain in the arse, lower speed limits don't stop people bumping into each other and when they do bump into each other they won't stop the agro of explaining to various insurance companys for the next 5 years or getting your car fixed or being without your car or the expense. Only a very small handful of people get killed on the road and in proportion to the number of people that use the roads and the total distance they travel, it is hardly worth worrying about. Vehicles have become safer, so if you do crash, all things being equal the crash is more survivable, but we both know that speed cameras and lower limits have had the praise for this.
The biggest cause of death in men my age is suicide, and men my age probably do the highest annual mileages, but are more likely to take their own life that get killed on the roads. Look at the numbers of people that are already dying from basically being too fat and then look at the numbers that will die from being too fat in the future. The numbers dying on the roads in nothing compared to this, so why all the fuss? My guess is because crashes are big and noisey, unlike fat people who are big and sweaty, but don't make so much noise when they die.
The main issue with RTA's is the time taken to reopen the roads. This is because they are now treated like a major crime scene where every last fragment of indicator lens has to be examined, rather than just making sure people are treated, sweeping up the wreckage and opening the road asap. When an old person trips over a paving slap, the police don't close the pavement for 5 hours. All of the low hanging road safety fruit has been picked and the law of diminishing returns dictates that any reduction in road casualties will be more difficult and more expensive to achieve and achieving them will just make driving more and more difficult to the point where easy travel options will need to be found. Look at air travel, extremely safe but a total and utter ball ache. That's why I don't fly very often, it's just too much faff.
Make sure you and your car are both legal
Keep the noise down
Watch what you are doing. That's all I ask.
Well argued CMoose and am in agreement.
I respect most limits most of the time. If I choose to break a 60 or 70 limit I do not feel conflicted. Its an active choice and based upon a dynamic risk assessment that most of us do all the time. Its clear to me that being a little over 70 on a motorway feels safer than being doorhandle to doorhandle with other cars and often reduces risk and increases safety space. No need to be conflicted if you accept responsibility and feel it defensible.
Some may disagree and may use the word 'entitlement'. Again just accept this as its a matter of their opinion and you may value your own active judgement higher than their detached blanket aparatchik opinion. Choices
I respect most limits most of the time. If I choose to break a 60 or 70 limit I do not feel conflicted. Its an active choice and based upon a dynamic risk assessment that most of us do all the time. Its clear to me that being a little over 70 on a motorway feels safer than being doorhandle to doorhandle with other cars and often reduces risk and increases safety space. No need to be conflicted if you accept responsibility and feel it defensible.
Some may disagree and may use the word 'entitlement'. Again just accept this as its a matter of their opinion and you may value your own active judgement higher than their detached blanket aparatchik opinion. Choices
Willy Nilly said:
RobinOakapple said:
Speed limits exist not to stop PHers having fun and not to prevent accidents (although they do of course contribute to that) or make roads safe, or to provide fodder for Digby's villains to profit from. They are there to make accidents less serious if and when they occur and to provide more avoidance time than would be available if people drove at the speed they chose
Most accidents aren't serious, but even minor accidents are an utter pain in the arse, lower speed limits don't stop people bumping into each other and when they do bump into each other they won't stop the agro of explaining to various insurance companys for the next 5 years or getting your car fixed or being without your car or the expense... Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff