RE: Pro-scamera group issues counter-blast
Monday 16th May 2005
Pro-scamera group issues counter-blast
Road safety is all about speed, says group
 While speed should be restrained here...  ...it makes little sense here, on the M4, now undergoing a motorway camera experiment |
Road safety campaign Roadsafe has launched a counter-attack against those who believe, like PistonHeads and many road safety campaigns, that concentration on speed alone over-simplifies the road safety message, and can make roads more dangerous.
The group, formed by industry and Government, said it believes that "eliminating excessive speed will save lives and has outlined some of the potential solutions, their benefits and the rationale behind enforcement methodologies that will significantly contribute to road safety."
The group has issued a briefing document whose key points are that:
- Studies of individual drivers show that when exceeding the average speed by 25 per cent a driver is about six times as likely to be involved in an incident in comparison with a driver adopting the average speed. This is similar to the risk associated with alcohol at the legal limit of 80mg/100ml blood alcohol content. [This would appear to be conflating two entirely separate issues -- PH].
- Studies of road sections show that for roads of each type, the number of crashes and collisions increases with increasing average speed – the effect varies on different road types and is strongest for the slowest roads. A ball-park figure is that each 1mph reduction in average speed is accompanied by a five per cent reduction in accidents. [If this were true, we find it hard to explain why motorways are simultaneously both Britain's safest and fastest roads -- PH].
- Before and after studies of intervention measures. Traffic calming measures (such as road humps and chicanes) in 20mph zones have reduced average speeds by about 10mph and resulted in a 50 per cent reduction in collisions. Measures adopted in rural villages have reduced average speeds by about 5mph and resulted in at least 20 per cent fewer collisions. [Few argue for higher speeds through towns and villages and, although most drivers appear to do it, PistonHeads would argue that stricter controls in such areas are, in many cases, appropriate -- PH].
- Research at Napier University shows that individuals are aware that speeds they normally adopt when alone are actually unsafe. For example, participants described situations in which they would slow down such as the presence of a speed camera or child in the car. This suggests that individuals know that if they see a camera they would need to slow down because they would be exceeding the limit. [Surely this shows awareness of the circumstances, and bolsters the road anti-camera campaigners' arguments that drivers are capable of regulating their speed according to circumstances -- PH].
Groups campaigning for more comprehensive methods of road safety enforcement than just revenue-raising speed cameras include the Association of British Drivers and SafeSpeed -- links below).
Links
Discussion
Hardly an balanced report report - jobs for the boys, eh? To start the ball rolling...
Highly likely there would be an increase in death with an 80 limit? But many if not most drivers do around that speed anyway - in absolute safety.
I shudder to think what rigid enforcement of the 70 limit would do for deaths statistics over the long term when regression to the mean can't be used by these outfits to claim "success".
report said:
Careful consideration of the introduction of an 80mph limit on roads specifically engineered for the purpose. Whilst such an increase would be likely to have popular support, it is highly likely that there would be an increase in death and injury in free-flowing motorway traffic by of the order of 10 per cent and it could well increase deaths in such traffic by 15 per cent.
Highly likely there would be an increase in death with an 80 limit? But many if not most drivers do around that speed anyway - in absolute safety.
I shudder to think what rigid enforcement of the 70 limit would do for deaths statistics over the long term when regression to the mean can't be used by these outfits to claim "success".
agree with all the PH points above, but just a small pedantic point:
[pic]www.pistonheads.com/pics/news/10653/M4_traffic-5-t.JPG[/[ic]
wouldn't a nice clear stretch of motorway better illustrate the point? I can see the camera-lovers pointing to that shot to claim that PH encourages speeding into heavy traffic on the M-way.
[pic]www.pistonheads.com/pics/news/10653/M4_traffic-5-t.JPG[/[ic]
wouldn't a nice clear stretch of motorway better illustrate the point? I can see the camera-lovers pointing to that shot to claim that PH encourages speeding into heavy traffic on the M-way.
"Studies of individual drivers show that when exceeding the average speed by 25 per cent a driver is about six times as likely to be involved in an incident in comparison with a driver adopting the average speed."
At least on main M'ways, i would think the average is way above 70mph anyway
At least on main M'ways, i would think the average is way above 70mph anyway
article said:
Studies of individual drivers show that when exceeding the average speed by 25 per cent a driver is about six times as likely to be involved in an incident in comparison with a driver adopting the average speed.
Surely this is an argument that supports allowing drivers to use their own judgement? Note that they state "average speed" as opposed to "posted limit" i.e. most drivers travel at a speed that is safe, regardless of the limit...
Zod said:
agree with all the PH points above, but just a small pedantic point:
[pic]www.pistonheads.com/pics/news/10653/M4_traffic-5-t.JPG[/[ic]
wouldn't a nice clear stretch of motorway better illustrate the point? I can see the camera-lovers pointing to that shot to claim that PH encourages speeding into heavy traffic on the M-way.
Fair point -- I've amended the caption to make it clear why I chose the pic.
Manek
PH Editor
"Studies of individual drivers show that when exceeding the average speed by 25 per cent a driver is about six times as likely to be involved in an incident in comparison with a driver adopting the average speed."
Bearing in mind (as others have said already) that avg speed is above 70 anyway, this 25% figure suggests a speed nearer 100mph. Done at the wrong time (e.g. busy/bunching traffic) this might wsell result in an increased risk of an "incident"?
But it is a million miles from endorsing people's license for doing 79mph on an empty motorway - another example of the forked tongues of those in the pro-scamera camp.
Bearing in mind (as others have said already) that avg speed is above 70 anyway, this 25% figure suggests a speed nearer 100mph. Done at the wrong time (e.g. busy/bunching traffic) this might wsell result in an increased risk of an "incident"?
But it is a million miles from endorsing people's license for doing 79mph on an empty motorway - another example of the forked tongues of those in the pro-scamera camp.
"Groups campaigning for more comprehensive methods of road safety enforcement than just revenue-rasing speed cameras include the Association of British Drivers and SafeSpeec-- links below)."
It seems Roadsafe don't disagree on this point, they point out the benefits of a wide range of other policies including Education, Training, Public Information and better signage.
Now I might be imagining things but aren't they just the sort of things that many people here have been suggesting?
To have a crack at this just because it puts SOME cameras into the suggested mix seems a bit self defeating.
It seems Roadsafe don't disagree on this point, they point out the benefits of a wide range of other policies including Education, Training, Public Information and better signage.
Now I might be imagining things but aren't they just the sort of things that many people here have been suggesting?
To have a crack at this just because it puts SOME cameras into the suggested mix seems a bit self defeating.
Take your point, but the latest policy briefing from the group opens with this statement:
"Driving too fast kills more people than any other traffic law violation."
This may be true as far as it goes, but does it include violations such as driving without due care & attention, such as not paying attention for whatever reason? So it's a point of some contention, not a proven fact.
>> Edited by manek on Monday 16th May 10:59
"Driving too fast kills more people than any other traffic law violation."
This may be true as far as it goes, but does it include violations such as driving without due care & attention, such as not paying attention for whatever reason? So it's a point of some contention, not a proven fact.
>> Edited by manek on Monday 16th May 10:59
manek said:
Take your point, but the latest policy briefing from the group opens with this statement:
"Driving too fast kills more people than any other traffic law violation."
I would love to see their proof of that
Could it have anything to do with there being no
on the road, therefore DD etc. is now going undetected.pwellsie said:You may joke, but (practicalities aside) doing 10 mph everywhere in town may well eliminate accidents... Not that I'd want to see the limit dropped like that, but you can understand where I'm coming from.
A ball-park figure is that each 1mph reduction in average speed is accompanied by a five per cent reduction in accidents.
So all we need to do to completely eliminate crashes once and for all is reduce every speed limit by 20 mph!
Who would have thought it would be such a simple solution to the problem?
Obviously (I think!), limiting everyone to 50 mph on motorways is more likely to increase accidents, as attention would wonder.
Dan
[quote]A ball-park figure is that each 1mph reduction in average speed is accompanied by a five per cent reduction in accidents.[/quote]
Why are they still quoting this piece of garbage? This was the result of the statistical equivalent of adding 3 oranges to 4 apples and 1 elephant to get 42. i.e. several totally unrelated studies done in the 60s in different countries.
Why are they still quoting this piece of garbage? This was the result of the statistical equivalent of adding 3 oranges to 4 apples and 1 elephant to get 42. i.e. several totally unrelated studies done in the 60s in different countries.
lentilists said:Ummmm - ok, lets assume this statement is true [cough]
"Driving too fast kills more people than any other traffic law violation."
Is this per speeding event or per time period...
I would wager my worldy goods that, for example, running red lights has a far higher proportion of lethal accidents per event
Speeding is safe when you are driving according to the conditions and being observant. I break the speed limit every day and I've never had an accident or been booked for speeding.
lentilists said:
"Driving too fast kills more people than any other traffic law violation."
Mmmmm, it's all in the wording isn't it? but it's right.
"Too fast" for conditions is the cause of all motoring accidents.
Traveling at any speed above 0mph when knocking over a perdestian on a crossing.
Any speed above 0mph when running red lights.
"Too fast" may just be their get out clause. Factually correct, but too obvious to state. Total Crap.
report said:
Studies of road sections show that for roads of each type, the number of crashes and collisions increases with increasing average speed – the effect varies on different road types and is strongest for the slowest roads
Well that's a revelation! So speeding in a 30 limit is more dangerous than speeding on a motorway.
I agree totally with the point made earlier about red light cameras. Speed cameras have recently been installed near Whipps Cross hospital in East London to enforce a 40mph limit. However they've been placed either side of a set of traffic lights - so drivers generally go through the cameras at 35mph and try and make the lights
Statistically red light cameras are the most effective and who can argue that running a red light is a dumb thing to do?I have links with ABD and SafeSpeed and have been trying to get recognition of the specific and teachable skills that could help raise the debate above the ranting and speed obsession.
Its in a new online book: www.skilldriver.org
Its in a new online book: www.skilldriver.org
Roadsafe said:
Research at Napier University shows that individuals are aware that speeds they normally adopt when alone are actually unsafe. For example, participants described situations in which they would slow down such as the presence of a speed camera or child in the car. This suggests that individuals know that if they see a camera they would need to slow down because they would be exceeding the limit.
Slowing down because you have a child in the car or because of a speed camera doesn't necessarily mean you were driving unsafely. One is a distraction (and might throw up
) and one threatens your wallet and licence. Slowing for these hazards demonstrates an ability to drive according to the conditions. PH comment said:
Surely this shows awareness of the circumstances, and bolsters the road anti-camera campaigners' arguments that drivers are capable of regulating their speed according to circumstances.
Oh, you said that
You can imagine the scene in some Islington flat.
'You know Tarquin, these pro-speeding groups are starting to come up with lucid arguments against our and our brethrens petty tirades, what can we possibly do about it?'
'Well Babs, I suggest a long and metered dose of complete nonsense and lunacy'
'Good thinking Tarquin, that should sort it'
You really couldnt make it up.
'You know Tarquin, these pro-speeding groups are starting to come up with lucid arguments against our and our brethrens petty tirades, what can we possibly do about it?'
'Well Babs, I suggest a long and metered dose of complete nonsense and lunacy'
'Good thinking Tarquin, that should sort it'
You really couldnt make it up.
Ist a thread on Paulie's site - posted by Ernest.
"Speeeding Driver - Who, How Why" - und if you follow the links - you get to some interviews mit peoples who had accidents - und all said they slowed if they saw scam - but no scam would have prevented the accidents as all were one or all concerned making error - of the COAST kind.....und there was one silly girl who said 50 mph was safe on motorway - und she ist one who reversed into parked car Und collided with gate in her driveway....
Ist a lot to read through though ..
"Speeeding Driver - Who, How Why" - und if you follow the links - you get to some interviews mit peoples who had accidents - und all said they slowed if they saw scam - but no scam would have prevented the accidents as all were one or all concerned making error - of the COAST kind.....und there was one silly girl who said 50 mph was safe on motorway - und she ist one who reversed into parked car
Und collided with gate in her driveway.... Ist a lot to read through though ..
Those who exceed speed limit by a wide margin are usually some joy rider or some such. Average driver ist speeding by margin of 5-10 mph above limits - und no accidents - und this margin ist usually result of speed limit on the road being set too low und 85th percentile flowing nicely und safely along..
Slowest roads? Ja- more collisions occur in car aprks where people are milling around in congested und compacted area - full of hazards like cars, posts und pedestrians und trolleys (why can they never return to trolley to trolley park
und why do they let their silly children play in them )
Und - speeding in villages? You ever tried driving in Ambleside, Grasmere, Keswick, Windermere, Bowness, Hawksheads at speed above 15 mph ...ist impossible in season as tourists jaywalk everywhere und ist busy as constant. Und same applies in Dales und other rural areas .....But people still collide mit cars - even at low speed because they are looking at views und scenery und not where they are going. Und I see this regualrly in the high season here. Und Steviebabes surely agrees - ist a problem und his talivan cannot do anything about it.
Ist about all being aware of road sense und need to look, observe, und anticipate.
Und as for driving more slowly if kitten ist in car.... I see mumpties all the time doing dangerous things - in car und in supermarket car parks...und when they park up on school runs....
Ist a nonsense they write as per usual. Suggest a nice rare steak instead of lentil burger - will reduce flatulence in thought!
Slowest roads? Ja- more collisions occur in car aprks where people are milling around in congested und compacted area - full of hazards like cars, posts und pedestrians und trolleys (why can they never return to trolley to trolley park
und why do they let their silly children play in them ) Und - speeding in villages? You ever tried driving in Ambleside, Grasmere, Keswick, Windermere, Bowness, Hawksheads at speed above 15 mph ...ist impossible in season as tourists jaywalk everywhere und ist busy as constant. Und same applies in Dales und other rural areas .....But people still collide mit cars - even at low speed because they are looking at views und scenery und not where they are going. Und I see this regualrly in the high season here. Und Steviebabes surely agrees - ist a problem und his talivan cannot do anything about it.
Ist about all being aware of road sense und need to look, observe, und anticipate.
Und as for driving more slowly if kitten ist in car.... I see mumpties all the time doing dangerous things - in car und in supermarket car parks...und when they park up on school runs....
Ist a nonsense they write as per usual. Suggest a nice rare steak instead of lentil burger - will reduce flatulence in thought!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff