Discussion
Demolay said:
vonhosen said:
k321 said:
but do these people really get fines, these SPECS must be getting loads of revenue from what i have seen on the motorways recently.
Yes they do, then some no doubt will complain about how unfair that is.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 30th July 12:57
No doubt.
The volume of people being caught would suggest, however, that the method of enforcement is grossly flawed. If the camera(s) were effective then no-one would be getting caught. As it stands, all that is happening is that people are driving through unaware that they're about to get NIPs.
How does that improve workers' safety I am bound to ask?
Just as we all expected....
Another question that you won't want to answer, von: Have you ever seen a speed limit that you consider to be too low? If so, how does bullying people into obeying it improve safety?
You have no answers to these sorts of questions because there are none. You've had your fun winding us up, and it's time to concede that camera supporters are factually incorrect.
gpshead said:
Demolay said:
vonhosen said:
k321 said:
but do these people really get fines, these SPECS must be getting loads of revenue from what i have seen on the motorways recently.
Yes they do, then some no doubt will complain about how unfair that is.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 30th July 12:57
No doubt.
The volume of people being caught would suggest, however, that the method of enforcement is grossly flawed. If the camera(s) were effective then no-one would be getting caught. As it stands, all that is happening is that people are driving through unaware that they're about to get NIPs.
How does that improve workers' safety I am bound to ask?
Just as we all expected....
Another question that you won't want to answer, von: Have you ever seen a speed limit that you consider to be too low? If so, how does bullying people into obeying it improve safety?
You have no answers to these sorts of questions because there are none. You've had your fun winding us up, and it's time to concede that camera supporters are factually incorrect.
I'm sorry I haven't been around all week to make comment here (as that appears to be directed at me).
I wasn't aware either there was an onus on me to provide a response to every post anybody makes here
My own questions then (as hopefully you'll have the answers that may help in answering your questions because I don't).
Forget the fact that some are still exceeding the limit for a minute (because there always will be people that are.
Have the percentage numbers exceeding the limit prior to the introduction of SPECS on those sections risen or fallen & has the average speed in relation to the limit set (before & after) risen or fallen ?
When I've ever driven through the M1 SPECS covered roadworks, I've personally witnessed greater adherence to the limit set now than at times before the roadworks & SPECS were present.
Why should the limit be set at 40mph? What makes that stretch of road more dangerous than a single carriageway NSL? The opposing traffic is still separated, something you don't see on a SC NSL. The safety of the workers is cited but that seems like a red herring as they too are protected by concrete barriers.
rsvmilly said:
The safety of the workers is cited but that seems like a red herring as they too are protected by concrete barriers.
Unfortunately concrete barrier sections weigh only about 5 tonnes each. So if you hit one at 70mph in a Range Rover or Gayenne, it's going to move. Besides which, a multi-car pile up is a lot more likely at 70mph in reduced-width lanes than at 40mph. And you'd need pretty special barriers to contain that. vonhosen said:
When I've ever driven through the M1 SPECS covered roadworks, I've personally witnessed greater adherence to the limit set now than at times before the roadworks & SPECS were present.
It's true. In the manner in which most people do 80mph on a 70mph motorway, they do 50mph through 40mph roadworks. It's because they realise that they should be going slower, but they still can't restrain themselves from going just a little faster than the limit... because most drivers are retards.Andrew D said:
rsvmilly said:
The safety of the workers is cited but that seems like a red herring as they too are protected by concrete barriers.
Unfortunately concrete barrier sections weigh only about 5 tonnes each. So if you hit one at 70mph in a Range Rover or Gayenne, it's going to move. Besides which, a multi-car pile up is a lot more likely at 70mph in reduced-width lanes than at 40mph. And you'd need pretty special barriers to contain that.Andrew D said:
vonhosen said:
When I've ever driven through the M1 SPECS covered roadworks, I've personally witnessed greater adherence to the limit set now than at times before the roadworks & SPECS were present.
It's true. In the manner in which most people do 80mph on a 70mph motorway, they do 50mph through 40mph roadworks. It's because they realise that they should be going slower, but they still can't restrain themselves from going just a little faster than the limit... because most drivers are retards.vonhosen said:
....
When I've ever driven through the M1 SPECS covered roadworks, I've personally witnessed greater adherence to the limit set now than at times before the roadworks & SPECS were present.
When I've ever driven through the M1 SPECS covered roadworks, I've personally witnessed greater adherence to the limit set now than at times before the roadworks & SPECS were present.
I have as well - apart from a few exceptions who either are untraceable (cloned or made up reg plates) or ignorant.
Correct lane discipline seems to go out the window with people doing considerably less than 40 in the middle/outer lanes when the inside is empty.
Even worse is when there is an impenetrable 'rolling roadblock' of cars across all 3 lanes all too close together.
I try and maintain some distance from these. Recently installed cruise control - superb invention makes this type of roadworks far less awkward to negociate.
Andrew D said:
It's true. In the manner in which most people do 80mph on a 70mph motorway, they do 50mph through 40mph roadworks. It's because they realise that they should be going slower, but they still can't restrain themselves from going just a little faster than the limit... because most drivers are retards.
Actually I think that most people do it because they think that they can safely and reasonably travel faster than the speed limit. And given that most people do it routinely without causing accidents, who are you to say that they are wrong? I'll refrain from the obvious personal insult.
shuvitupya said:
Further up the M1 1,000 drivers were caught by SPECS in 4 days.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/so
What can one say apart from its your own fault. Just proves that a lot of drivers go "blind" when they get behind the wheel. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/so
GreenV8S said:
Andrew D said:
It's true. In the manner in which most people do 80mph on a 70mph motorway, they do 50mph through 40mph roadworks. It's because they realise that they should be going slower, but they still can't restrain themselves from going just a little faster than the limit... because most drivers are retards.
Actually I think that most people do it because they think that they can safely and reasonably travel faster than the speed limit. And given that most people do it routinely without causing accidents, who are you to say that they are wrong? I'll refrain from the obvious personal insult.
Precisely
And they don't go faster than they do because that 10mph or so over the arbitrary limit is what they can confidently expect to get away with. The vast majority of drivers have probably not heard of SPECS, don't know what the cameras look like and don't understand how it works. They therefore don't slow down and aren't any "safer" until they find out about their error 2 weeks later. It's a good thing the limits are there to protect the workforce, eh?
GreenV8S said:
Actually I think that most people do it because they think that they can safely and reasonably travel faster than the speed limit. And given that most people do it routinely without causing accidents, who are you to say that they are wrong?
In the year 2000 over 1,500 people were injured due to 800 accidents in roadworks. In fact, between October 2000 and February 2002 11 (or 1 in 1000) roadworkers were fatally injured. So even though people might do it routinely, it's certainly not without accident. mechsympathy said:
And they don't go faster than they do because that 10mph or so over the arbitrary limit is what they can confidently expect to get away with.
So if there wasn't an "arbitrary" temporary speed limit in roadworks, how fast would people go? In fact, if there wasn't a 70mph limit either, how quick would they go? And would that be safe? Is there a speed that you would term unsafe, and how did you determine that speed?Andrew D said:
In the year 2000 over 1,500 people were injured due to 800 accidents in roadworks. In fact, between October 2000 and February 2002 11 (or 1 in 1000) roadworkers were fatally injured. So even though people might do it routinely, it's certainly not without accident.
But how many of these accidents were due to speed, rather than inattention, tailgating, rummaging around in the glovebox for a mars bar etc etc? And how do these stats work out by mile? (And compare to non-roadwork stats?)
And I'd be interested to know how those roadworker accidents occurred.
Andrew D said:
So if there wasn't an "arbitrary" temporary speed limit in roadworks, how fast would people go? In fact, if there wasn't a 70mph limit either, how quick would they go? And would that be safe? Is there a speed that you would term unsafe, and how did you determine that speed?
Oh come on, you know perfectly well that no speed is inherently unsafe, just as any speed can be unsafe. Speed limits are arbitrary, and are increasingly being used as lowest common denominator device in a (IMO) misguided effort to improve road safety.
Andrew D said:
GreenV8S said:
Actually I think that most people do it because they think that they can safely and reasonably travel faster than the speed limit. And given that most people do it routinely without causing accidents, who are you to say that they are wrong?
In the year 2000 over 1,500 people were injured due to 800 accidents in roadworks. In fact, between October 2000 and February 2002 11 (or 1 in 1000) roadworkers were fatally injured. So even though people might do it routinely, it's certainly not without accident.You're implying that speed in excess of the speed limit increased the number of deaths or injuries in roadworks. What evidence do you have to support this theory?
mechsympathy said:
But how many of these accidents were due to speed, rather than inattention, tailgating, rummaging around in the glovebox for a mars bar etc etc? And how do these stats work out by mile? (And compare to non-roadwork stats?)
Good point, but then you'd need to be rummaging for a long time to cause a pile-up if everyone was doing 20mph. And if the rummager in the car in front clips the concrete barrier, you're a lot more likely to avoid him an avert a pile-up if you're doing 40mph than if you're doing 70mph. And I'm not sure about the frequency of injuries per mile, but I doubt the 11 dead workers really care about that statistic.
mechsympathy said:
Oh come on, you know perfectly well that no speed is inherently unsafe, just as any speed can be unsafe. Speed limits are arbitrary, and are increasingly being used as lowest common denominator device in a (IMO) misguided effort to improve road safety.
Again true. But whilst any speed is theoretically safe in the appropriate conditions, we're not talking about a laboratory here but the real world. Thus a certain level has to be set, and it's simply a question of whose decision you think it should be. Unfortunately speed limits can't be varied for each vehicle at each given time, so catering for the lowest common denominator is advisable. GreenV8S said:
You're implying that speed in excess of the speed limit increased the number of deaths or injuries in roadworks. What evidence do you have to support this theory?
It's simple fact that higher speeds reduce the likelihood that, in the event of an unexpected and potentially dangerous occurance such as a blowout, the driver will be able to safely respond. Accidents are happening, therefore there is room for improvement, and driving at an appropriate speed is one way to improve. Obviously what speed is appropriate is open to debate!Andrew D said:
Thus a certain level has to be set,
In a theoretical sense, no it doesn't.
You *could* just rely on folks's common sense.
You can't measure safety by miles per hour, although a limit
setting authority has to be seen to be doing something,
and their answer is usually to set a limit.
This is essentially unrelated to safety, and and more
to do with PR, in my view.
Andrew D said:
catering for the lowest common denominator is advisable.
No it isn't. A mate of mine can't drive - does that mean I
shouldn't ?
Catering for Mr & Mrs average, with protection for the
worst 10 per cent or so, would cater far better for far more
folks.
Andrew D said:
in the event of an unexpected and potentially dangerous occurance
such as a blowout, the driver will be able to safely respond.
I've had blowouts at 120 mph and it was no problem.
Given the choice between permanently driving too slowly on the
off chance that a one in 100,000 event might occur and using
my brains and driving at a speed I think is prudent for the
conditions, I'll take option 2, Bob everytime.
Andrew D said:
Accidents are happening, therefore there is room for improvement,
and driving at an appropriate speed is one way to improve.
Interesting to note that the whole safety debate is locked into
how fast is suitable.
Absolutely no mention of appropriate training.
UK Gov make themselves look like fools, IMHO, when no night
driving on driving test, no use of skid pan, no motorway test
etc etc etc and the lowest motorway speed limit of any country
in Europe.
It's no wonder I've heard that the UK Gov is the MaccyD's of
government. Catering to the lowest common denominator indeed.
dcb said:
In a theoretical sense, no it doesn't.
You *could* just rely on folks's common sense.
I'd be surprised if anyone really thought that we could remove all speed limits this evening and not have carnage on the roads tomorrow. I'm sure in a theoretical situation designing from scratch it could be done, but I'm afraid we have to work with the level of driver ability and infrastructure available. You *could* just rely on folks's common sense.
dcb said:
No it isn't. A mate of mine can't drive - does that mean I
shouldn't ?
Catering for Mr & Mrs average, with protection for the
worst 10 per cent or so, would cater far better for far more
folks.
Speeds limits (the topic under discussion) only have meaning for drivers/motorcyclists, so how could non-drivers even be part of the equation, let alone affect the denominator? Setting limits to suit the "average" driver (which might be rather difficult to quantify) would be pointless, as it's rarely the skilled driver that causes an accident. Surely we should be aiming to help those that actually need guidance? shouldn't ?
Catering for Mr & Mrs average, with protection for the
worst 10 per cent or so, would cater far better for far more
folks.
And I'd be interested to know how, using a single method of influence (speed limits, the topic under discussion), you could both focus on the mean and yet protect the least capable. I'm all for driver training, but it takes a decade to have appreciable impact. Real world problems require real world solutions.
dcb said:
Andrew D said:
Accidents are happening, therefore there is room for improvement,
and driving at an appropriate speed is one way to improve.
Interesting to note that the whole safety debate is locked into
how fast is suitable.
Andrew D said:
GreenV8S said:
You're implying that speed in excess of the speed limit increased the number of deaths or injuries in roadworks. What evidence do you have to support this theory?
It's simple fact that higher speeds reduce the likelihood that, in the event of an unexpected and potentially dangerous occurance such as a blowout, the driver will be able to safely respond. Accidents are happening, therefore there is room for improvement, and driving at an appropriate speed is one way to improve. Obviously what speed is appropriate is open to debate!
That's a more reasonable position than your first one which condemned drivers who exceed the speed limit in roadworks as retards. You're still making the assumption that 50 mph in a 40 limit is significantly less safe than 40 mph in the same limit, i.e. the speed difference is important in terms of safety.
I don't see any particular reason to suppose that it is, and I haven't seen any figures that suggest it is. In fact there are some effects which make higher speeds MORE safe, and it's conceivable that the lower speed is not actually the safer one.
Andrew D said:
In the manner in which most people do 80mph on a 70mph motorway, they do 50mph through 40mph roadworks. It's because they realise that they should be going slower, but they still can't restrain themselves from going just a little faster than the limit... because most drivers are retards.
GreenV8S said:
That's a more reasonable position than your first one which condemned drivers who exceed the speed limit in roadworks as retards.
I'm afraid that's misrepresenting what I said. I actually said that people who indulge themselves by driving above the limit, restrained only by the degree of risk of getting caught that they are willing to accept, are retards. I very much doubt that most drivers make a reasoned judgement about what is a safe speed, and drive to that speed. This is because most drivers will not be in possession of sufficient information to make that judgement, even though they might think that they are. GreenV8S said:
You're still making the assumption that 50 mph in a 40 limit is significantly less safe than 40 mph in the same limit, i.e. the speed difference is important in terms of safety.
I don't see any particular reason to suppose that it is, and I haven't seen any figures that suggest it is. In fact there are some effects which make higher speeds MORE safe, and it's conceivable that the lower speed is not actually the safer one.
It's not an assumption, and it's not significantly (which implies a non-linear relationship, which is not true). All things being equal, a vehicle travelling at a lower speed has more time to avoid an accident, and should an accident occur, requires less energy discharge to come to a stop. Less energy mean less violence, less smashed glass and metal, fewer Basal Skull Fractures, less injury. I don't see any particular reason to suppose that it is, and I haven't seen any figures that suggest it is. In fact there are some effects which make higher speeds MORE safe, and it's conceivable that the lower speed is not actually the safer one.
Read TD 9/93, it's the standard for the design of highway alignments. It's underpinned by that so-called "assumption".
Andrew D said:
I very much doubt that most drivers make a reasoned judgement about what is a safe speed, and drive to that speed. This is because most drivers will not be in possession of sufficient information to make that judgement, even though they might think that they are.
If that were true, I would expect that 90% of drivers on country roads, and 90% of drivers on any road in snowy conditions, to fall off the road - yet this does not happen.
Andrew D said:
All things being equal, a vehicle travelling at a lower speed has more time to avoid an accident, and should an accident occur, requires less energy discharge to come to a stop. Less energy mean less violence, less smashed glass and metal, fewer Basal Skull Fractures, less injury.
While that is true it's not the whole story. It is known that free travelling speed does not equal impact speed otherwise there would be many, many more deaths; driver awareness is the key difference. This awareness is being eroded and lost with our increasing dependence in relying upon numbers to guide us.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff