If Speeding is unsafe ...

[BigBob]

............ why isn't this bit of the M4 covered in blood?


HUNDREDS of people are ignoring average speed cameras on the M4 at Port Talbot on a daily basis — but those who are will get caution letters from next week.

Between 400 to 700 people per day on the stretch of motorway between junctions 40 and 41 are exceeding the 50 mph speed limit.

Read more: http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/Hundreds-i...

[allergictocheese]

There has to be a line in the sand somewhere. We can all debate whether or not it's in the right place.

Does the OP believe there shouldn't be a line?

[Countdown]

That suggests to me that between 400 and 700 people using the M4 every day are a bit thick.

With regards to the "safety" question - it's quite possible to do dangerous things and get away with it. Playing Russian roulette is perfectly safe 5 times out of 6.

[BigBob]

No I don't, I believe in appropriate 'lines in the sand' - but I do believe there are too many political influences behind many speed limits.

If up to 700 motorists a day are exceeding the 'limit' and carnage hasn't resulted, one must question whether this is an appropriate limit.

BB



//edited for clarity

Edited by BigBob on Thursday 1st January 11:53

[jmorgan]

For reference for those that do not know, that section has been 50 for as long as I can remember and it is an elevated section over housing, units etc. I expect the reason is for the one or two that may spill over the edge in an ordinary M way speed crash and keep the noise down.

Either way, do it after the 19th Jan and you get a ticket.

I find that on average most people are not that far over if at all. The biggest issues have been the junctions joining and leaving and the camera's causing nervous drivers to do 40. Even the one west bound gatso, that caused too many accidents, that was removed, its ghost plagued people for years still causing near misses at the very least.

[singlecoil]

BigBob said:

No I don't, I believe in appropriate 'lines in the sand' - but I do believe there are too many political influences behind many speed limits.

If up to 700 motorists a day are exceeding the 'limit' and carnage hasn't resulted, one must question whether this is an appropriate limit.

BB



//edited for clarity

Edited by BigBob on Thursday 1st January 11:53

What do you think the political motive might be in this case?

I ask because the first motive of any politician is to get re-elected.

[Kinky]

What I find astounding is

article said:

From January 5 to 18, those people exceeding the limit will receive a cautionary letter informing they have exceeded the speed limit. “The Average Speed system will go live on January 19. “This will give the general public time to adjust their speeds and change their driving behaviour."

I just can't believe that it will take a few months (from October to mid-Jan) for people to 'adjust their speeds'.

If you see a 50 sign, you slow down to 50. It's not that challenging. Is it?

[jmorgan]

Think there was another article with the traffic numbers and the percentage over was around 1%

[e21Mark]

Countdown said:

Russian roulette is perfectly safe 5 times out of 6.

Is it? Pretty sure the risk remains the same each time.

[BigBob]

singlecoil said:

BigBob said:

No I don't, I believe in appropriate 'lines in the sand' - but I do believe there are too many political influences behind many speed limits.

If up to 700 motorists a day are exceeding the 'limit' and carnage hasn't resulted, one must question whether this is an appropriate limit.

BB



//edited for clarity

Edited by BigBob on Thursday 1st January 11:53

What do you think the political motive might be in this case?

I ask because the first motive of any politician is to get re-elected.

And who elects them - their local electorate not people passing through. Who are likely to take more notice of?

BB

[okie592]

That Strech of the m4 has always been 50. People don't need to adjust they have just replaced standard gatzos with average speed cameras.

Not that you can do anywhere near 50 during rush hour, more like 20-30.

Also the new average speed cameras don't even start at the start of the 50. The first one is at the old gatzos and ends at the end of the 50 zone

[jmorgan]

BigBob said:

singlecoil said:

BigBob said:

No I don't, I believe in appropriate 'lines in the sand' - but I do believe there are too many political influences behind many speed limits.

If up to 700 motorists a day are exceeding the 'limit' and carnage hasn't resulted, one must question whether this is an appropriate limit.

BB



//edited for clarity

Edited by BigBob on Thursday 1st January 11:53

What do you think the political motive might be in this case?

I ask because the first motive of any politician is to get re-elected.

And who elects them - their local electorate not people passing through. Who are likely to take more notice of?

BB

Not sure there is any political motive here.

[Dammit]

Sections of the Autobahn are speed limited to reduce noise for local residents, presumably the Germans have therefore got their approach to speed limits all wrong as well?

[Countdown]

e21Mark said:

Countdown said:

Russian roulette is perfectly safe 5 times out of 6.

Is it? Pretty sure the risk remains the same each time.

You must be mistaken. I've played it loads of times and no kittens died ergo it's perfectly safe.

[CAFEDEAD]

A spokeswoman for GoSafe said:

From January 5 to 18, those people exceeding the limit will receive a cautionary letter informing they have exceeded the speed limit.

The Average Speed system will go live on January 19.

This will give the general public time to adjust their speeds and change their driving behaviour.

i.e. There's nothing unsafe about it, loads of people are doing it, but if we actually fine the number of people doing it straight away they'll be uproar at the farce being orchestrated in the name of safety.

[singlecoil]

CAFEDEAD said:

A spokeswoman for GoSafe said:

From January 5 to 18, those people exceeding the limit will receive a cautionary letter informing they have exceeded the speed limit.

The Average Speed system will go live on January 19.

This will give the general public time to adjust their speeds and change their driving behaviour.

i.e. There's nothing unsafe about it, loads of people are doing it, but if we actually fine the number of people doing it straight away they'll be uproar at the farce being orchestrated in the name of safety.

So why do you think they are doing it, is it just for the money, or do they actually want people to slow down? If it's the money, it would seem like a diminishing returns scenario because some people will get fined and then stop speeding, and others won't actually need the fine before they stop speeding.

[jmorgan]

singlecoil said:

CAFEDEAD said:

A spokeswoman for GoSafe said:

From January 5 to 18, those people exceeding the limit will receive a cautionary letter informing they have exceeded the speed limit.

The Average Speed system will go live on January 19.

This will give the general public time to adjust their speeds and change their driving behaviour.

i.e. There's nothing unsafe about it, loads of people are doing it, but if we actually fine the number of people doing it straight away they'll be uproar at the farce being orchestrated in the name of safety.

So why do you think they are doing it, is it just for the money, or do they actually want people to slow down? If it's the money, it would seem like a diminishing returns scenario because some people will get fined and then stop speeding, and others won't actually need the fine before they stop speeding.

This limit has been in place for many years.
The percentage of people that will get a ticket is small compared to number of users. When there were average speed camera's on the road works around Newport, they did quite a few people and there was no outcry.

And this limit is there for good reason I think. You do need limits in some places despite the PH membership rule No. 6 that states "you must hate all limits without reason".

[Johnnytheboy]

A cautionary letter, ooh I'm quaking here!

[CAFEDEAD]

singlecoil said:

So why do you think they are doing it, is it just for the money, or do they actually want people to slow down? If it's the money, it would seem like a diminishing returns scenario because some people will get fined and then stop speeding, and others won't actually need the fine before they stop speeding.

I think the reasons are complex, I doubt people whose incomes depend upon these schemes care about diminishing returns from any one particular set, the fanatics at BRAKE probably do think it saves lives, politicians don't care either way if they think it'll get them votes or even a quiet life beyond the public's general malaise.

Whatever it is, it isn't genuinely for safety reasons. Above all else, all the data would be transparently on data.gov.uk and they'd be shouting about the success story from the rooftops. They're not, because it's all a bit mucky.

[allergictocheese]

How could they possibly measure it? Simply measuring the number of accidents in close proximity to camera sites before and after would miss too many metrics to make any proper judgement.

Of course, you could look at the overall proliferation of cameras and the KSI rates and look for correlations there. I suspect that pattern wouldn't suit those who don't like cameras and all the plaudits would instead by heaped upon modern cars being so much safer.

The answer really is that you cant take a simple measurement of the overall efficacy specifically of speed cameras and that's why you'll struggle to find one.