It's not about the money (yeah, right)!
Discussion
Crackie said:
Surely policy should be driven by analysis of facts rather than a misguded Police Commissioner's blind assumptions.......
You'll find that solid research on the subject is rather thin on the ground.There is some good research linking injury severity to impact speed, which is based on solid physics and medical science. But even there, this is only a very small part of the picture. For instance, there's a big difference in effect between a pole flying off a lorry ahead and going through your radiator, and the same pole going through your windscreen.
However, there is no good research linking accident incidence to speed, despite many attempts having been made.
Most of that which does exist is based on rather dodgy statistical analysis, and little, if anything, of much value which is based on physics.
And, as I've said many times before, attempts made to improve safety by slowing drivers down, such as narrowing roads and reducing lines of sight, may well be counterproductive.
Edited by Engineer792 on Thursday 26th October 14:12
witko999 said:
I think that figures showing how many people have been on a speed awareness course would be far more telling than the points alone. It will be far, far higher. When 10%+ (at a guess) of drivers are getting 'caught' it's not their behaviour that needs changing, it's the law.
It amazes me that people continue to defend the proliferation of speed cameras and petty enforcement. My own view is that anyone with moderate intelligence can see it has very little (or no) positive effect on safety and is a highly corrupt industry and practice. There are no other areas in my life where it is so easy to fall foul of the law. If my car speedometer stops working, I am still capable of driving completely safely to my destination, yet within a one hour journey I could easily pick up enough points to be banned from driving.
So what are you suggesting, no speed limits?It amazes me that people continue to defend the proliferation of speed cameras and petty enforcement. My own view is that anyone with moderate intelligence can see it has very little (or no) positive effect on safety and is a highly corrupt industry and practice. There are no other areas in my life where it is so easy to fall foul of the law. If my car speedometer stops working, I am still capable of driving completely safely to my destination, yet within a one hour journey I could easily pick up enough points to be banned from driving.
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
Vehicles aren't the problem, drivers are.
Are you implying drivers now are less competent than they were say 25 years ago?But drivers were the problem 25 years ago & they still are today.
The world they operate in? How does that work then? The tools they are using are far more capable, so it is fair to assume that makes driving easier than before. Yet the reduction in limits would suggest otherwise. What am I missing?
cmaguire said:
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
Vehicles aren't the problem, drivers are.
Are you implying drivers now are less competent than they were say 25 years ago?But drivers were the problem 25 years ago & they still are today.
The world they operate in? How does that work then? The tools they are using are far more capable, so it is fair to assume that makes driving easier than before. Yet the reduction in limits would suggest otherwise. What am I missing?
vonhosen said:
So what are you suggesting, no speed limits?
Not really, but I'd be happy to see a massive reduction in enforcement. I am yet to see any definitive evidence that excessive limit enforcement has any positive effect on road safety. All the reports I have read seem to trumpet their success based on the sheer volume of drivers caught, and then we see some useless statistics taken over a very short period that show the KSI stats have fluctuated around at the same level. This just highlights the corruption for me.I know from my own experience that driving is a lot more stressful nowadays having to constantly monitor speed rather than just drive to the conditions.
There will always be a number of people who manage to get themselves killed on the roads, no matter how 'safe' you make them. I'd rather see tougher penalties for people who actually cause an accident. Minor speeding is apparently dangerous and worthy of 3 points on your licence, but have an actual accident and apart from increased insurance premiums you get off scot free.
If we hit a pedestrian at 30 instead of 40 we are told they will survive. I don't know how many cars are mounting the pavement in these incidents but my guess is next to zero. I'd rather see some responsibility given to the pedestrian instead of all of it being placed on the driver. If people are walking into the road without looking then there are solutions other than reducing the speed limit and putting a camera there.
Davidonly said:
Speed enforcement by speed camera was introduced and escalated and has apparent 'public acceptance' BECAUSE of the associated risk of 'speeding'.
Can't remember the thread now but going back several months someone made a comment to the effect there had been plenty of surveys over a number of years which showed the vast majority of drivers supported the use and continued roll-out of speed cameras. However, when challenged to provide a link to some of this evidence the individual concerned disappeared off the thread faster than Usain Bolt with a cattle prong up his backside.A purely personal view but, while I think a majority would support camera use in known accident blackspots, I'm less convinced there's general support for things like cameras on Smart motorways enforcing the NSL or mobile vans sitting on bridges to enforce the NSL on quiet stretches of dual carriageway. Happy to stand corrected if there's evidence to show otherwise but I rather suspect the widespread 'public acceptance' of cameras is more assumption/fiction than fact....
witko999 said:
vonhosen said:
So what are you suggesting, no speed limits?
Not really, but I'd be happy to see a massive reduction in enforcement. I am yet to see any definitive evidence that excessive limit enforcement has any positive effect on road safety. All the reports I have read seem to trumpet their success based on the sheer volume of drivers caught, and then we see some useless statistics taken over a very short period that show the KSI stats have fluctuated around at the same level. This just highlights the corruption for me.witko999 said:
I know from my own experience that driving is a lot more stressful nowadays having to constantly monitor speed rather than just drive to the conditions.
Constantly monitor speed?Just stick the speed limiter on & away you go. Limit changes, change the limiter value.
Even without a limiter if you really do have to constantly look at the speedo in order to avoid drifting into prosecution territory then you must spectacularly lack awareness.
I honestly don't find having to drive within the speed limits stressful (despite me having spent a large part of my life exceeding them by huge margins). Being sat in traffic that isn't moving because some plum has been following the vehicle ahead too closely & has run into the back of it causing a tailback is far more stressful.
witko999 said:
There will always be a number of people who manage to get themselves killed on the roads, no matter how 'safe' you make them. I'd rather see tougher penalties for people who actually cause an accident. Minor speeding is apparently dangerous and worthy of 3 points on your licence, but have an actual accident and apart from increased insurance premiums you get off scot free.
No minor speeding isn't necessarily dangerous, it remains minor speeding however & is routinely ignored.The less minor the infraction however, the greater the penalties become.
witko999 said:
If we hit a pedestrian at 30 instead of 40 we are told they will survive. I don't know how many cars are mounting the pavement in these incidents but my guess is next to zero. I'd rather see some responsibility given to the pedestrian instead of all of it being placed on the driver. If people are walking into the road without looking then there are solutions other than reducing the speed limit and putting a camera there.
Drivers aren't routinely prosecuted for killing pedestrians who run in front of them. They are where they do so when committing offences however.A civilised society gears it's laws towards protecting it's most vulnerable people.
With great power comes great responsibility.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 26th October 19:35
witko999 said:
I am yet to see any definitive evidence that excessive limit enforcement has any positive effect on road safety. All the reports I have read seem to trumpet their success based on the sheer volume of drivers caught, and then we see some useless statistics taken over a very short period that show the KSI stats have fluctuated around at the same level.
That was exactly the situation in North Yorkshire when I looked at their figures last year. As Crackie pointed out a few posts back, we've seen lots more cameras, lots more convictions for speeding but no significant effect on the key safety measures the police force themselves choose to focus on. Therefore, while it might be uncharitable to say all these extra camera vans have made no difference to the safety of the county's roads, it would IMO be fair to say there's no evidence to demonstrate they've improved things.vonhosen said:
cmaguire said:
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
Vehicles aren't the problem, drivers are.
Are you implying drivers now are less competent than they were say 25 years ago?But drivers were the problem 25 years ago & they still are today.
The world they operate in? How does that work then? The tools they are using are far more capable, so it is fair to assume that makes driving easier than before. Yet the reduction in limits would suggest otherwise. What am I missing?
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
Because there are other things that matter now i.e. environmental considerations etc.
Not a particularly convincing argument for your earlier assertion that drivers are the problem.I'm just saying that limits aren't only about avoiding accidents, that's just one facet of them.
vonhosen said:
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
Because there are other things that matter now i.e. environmental considerations etc.
Not a particularly convincing argument for your earlier assertion that drivers are the problem.I'm just saying that limits aren't only about avoiding accidents, that's just one facet of them.
I was talking about speed limits, and specifically why they are lowering in the face of advances in vehicle safety and competence. As opposed to a logical increase in those limits, some might argue.
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
Because there are other things that matter now i.e. environmental considerations etc.
Not a particularly convincing argument for your earlier assertion that drivers are the problem.I'm just saying that limits aren't only about avoiding accidents, that's just one facet of them.
I was talking about speed limits, and specifically why they are lowering in the face of advances in vehicle safety and competence. As opposed to a logical increase in those limits, some might argue.
What safer were you talking of if it weren't from accidents?
As to what affects what limits might be set at, then what I was saying, it's not only about safety.
vonhosen said:
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
Because there are other things that matter now i.e. environmental considerations etc.
Not a particularly convincing argument for your earlier assertion that drivers are the problem.I'm just saying that limits aren't only about avoiding accidents, that's just one facet of them.
I was talking about speed limits, and specifically why they are lowering in the face of advances in vehicle safety and competence. As opposed to a logical increase in those limits, some might argue.
What safer were you talking of if it weren't from accidents?
As to what affects what limits might be set at, then what I was saying, it's not only about safety.
You could just admit it I suppose, but we both know that'll never happen.
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
Because there are other things that matter now i.e. environmental considerations etc.
Not a particularly convincing argument for your earlier assertion that drivers are the problem.I'm just saying that limits aren't only about avoiding accidents, that's just one facet of them.
I was talking about speed limits, and specifically why they are lowering in the face of advances in vehicle safety and competence. As opposed to a logical increase in those limits, some might argue.
What safer were you talking of if it weren't from accidents?
As to what affects what limits might be set at, then what I was saying, it's not only about safety.
You could just admit it I suppose, but we both know that'll never happen.
Like I said I'd rather I wasn't subject to any speeds limits anywhere, but I can understand why others wouldn't want me to be allowed to do that & I can also understand others reasons that some people might want there to be limits.
cmaguire said:
Why don't you tell me why you think the authorities are so fixated on speed?
This happened long before any of this environmental nonsense you have a habit of trotting out as some sort of alternative justification.
You are conflating two separate issues, why they exist & why they are what they are.This happened long before any of this environmental nonsense you have a habit of trotting out as some sort of alternative justification.
Why?
They do it because people break the limit & they have to uphold it as it exists.
Pressure groups, for a variety of reasons, campaign for them to enforce it.
Technology has just made the job of detecting & gaining evidence for it easier.
vonhosen said:
cmaguire said:
Why don't you tell me why you think the authorities are so fixated on speed?
This happened long before any of this environmental nonsense you have a habit of trotting out as some sort of alternative justification.
You are conflating two separate issues, why they exist & why they are what they are.This happened long before any of this environmental nonsense you have a habit of trotting out as some sort of alternative justification.
Why?
They do it because people break the limit & they have to uphold it as it exists.
Pressure groups, for a variety of reasons, campaign for them to enforce it.
Technology has just made the job of detecting & gaining evidence for it easier.
I'll be more specific.
Why don't you tell me why the authorities are so fixated on reducing speed.
I am really not interested in more justification for their process of enforcement. Or any reference to limits.
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
cmaguire said:
Why don't you tell me why you think the authorities are so fixated on speed?
This happened long before any of this environmental nonsense you have a habit of trotting out as some sort of alternative justification.
You are conflating two separate issues, why they exist & why they are what they are.This happened long before any of this environmental nonsense you have a habit of trotting out as some sort of alternative justification.
Why?
They do it because people break the limit & they have to uphold it as it exists.
Pressure groups, for a variety of reasons, campaign for them to enforce it.
Technology has just made the job of detecting & gaining evidence for it easier.
I'll be more specific.
Why don't you tell me why the authorities are so fixated on reducing speed.
I am really not interested in more justification for their process of enforcement. Or any reference to limits.
Some, under the last review (that councils were instructed to do) were lowered, but some actually went up.
Where reviews do take place & the criteria considered change (as I have outlined) it is natural that there may be some change to some limits in tandem with that change in criteria.
And I'm not justifying anything, I don't need to justify anything, I have nothing to do with it all.
I am relaying how I see things as a casual observer from the outside, I have no affiliation to either side of the debate. I'm ambivalent about it, it is what it is.
I just don't hold with all this tin foil hat stuff from either end of the spectrum.
I'm neither anti speed or pro speed. I don't hold with Brake's position or yours. You are just polar extremes.
vonhosen said:
I don't believe they are fixated on reducing speed. limits by & large remain the same.
Some, under the last review (that councils were instructed to do) were lowered, but some actually went up.
Where reviews do take place & the criteria considered change (as I have outlined) it is natural that there may be some change to some limits in tandem with that change in criteria.
And I'm not justifying anything, I don't need to justify anything, I have nothing to do with it all.
I am relaying how I see things as a casual observer from the outside, I have no affiliation to either side of the debate. I'm ambivalent about it, it is what it is.
I just don't hold with all this tin foil hat stuff from either end of the spectrum.
I'm neither anti speed or pro speed. I don't hold with Brake's position or yours. You are just polar extremes.
If you really were a casual observer I doubt you would think my position is extreme.Some, under the last review (that councils were instructed to do) were lowered, but some actually went up.
Where reviews do take place & the criteria considered change (as I have outlined) it is natural that there may be some change to some limits in tandem with that change in criteria.
And I'm not justifying anything, I don't need to justify anything, I have nothing to do with it all.
I am relaying how I see things as a casual observer from the outside, I have no affiliation to either side of the debate. I'm ambivalent about it, it is what it is.
I just don't hold with all this tin foil hat stuff from either end of the spectrum.
I'm neither anti speed or pro speed. I don't hold with Brake's position or yours. You are just polar extremes.
I have absolutely no expectation that circumstances might exist where I could legally use the roads as I do or would wish to. How I drive or ride is not the issue here, I don't matter.
I merely question the incongruity of the current system and the way the authorities want to wield an ever increasing control over what its citizens can do and where and when that is possible.
Control for control's sake is what I see, because much of what they do has no logic or compelling argument for it that justifies the consequent reduction in freedom that results.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff