Speed limits and enforcement -- where to next?

[Peter Ward]

I've been thinking about this for a while. I hope that we can discuss it in the appropriate spirit.

Given where we are now:
- Focus on "speed kills" as the primary road safety message
- Ever-reducing speed limits, set we believe by non-experts
- Automated enforcement of those limits with little/no leeway
- Huge increase in the number of speeding fines
- Slowdown in road safety improvements as indicated by historical statistics
- Reduction in funding for traffic police.

...what would we like to see happen as the outcome of a rational debate on improving road safety while at the same time maintaining personal mobility and reducing the level of "motorist persecution" felt by some?

Some ideas for starters. I'm sure there are more. These are not mutually exclusive options:

1) Full publication of accident statistics indicating causes, times, conditiions, driver state, etc
2) Full review of all speed limits. Limits to be set by experts based on known parameters (85th centile, etc)
3) Speed cameras to be used in known blackspots where speed is known to be the cause of deaths and where road engineering cannot make conditions safer
4) Removal of speed cameras from locations where there are no provable speed-related deaths
5) Elimination of mobile cameras except as a precursor to erecting valid cameras as per point 3
6) Speed cameras to be located away from road margins in accordance with road safety engineering principles
7) Increase in traffic police focused on all sources of road danger
8) Implementation of jay-walking laws
9) Improved education of children on road safety
10) Regular driving tests
11) Regular eye-sight tests for drivers
12) Tiered speed limits by vehicle capability and driver skill level
....

Perhaps we could develop a coherent set of options that would demonstrate that we have a healthy regard for road safety in parallel with a love of driving -- "safety fast" as MG used to say.

[david_s]

Would a small fine and no points for minor speeding 'offences' and a sliding scale for blatent infringments, be more acceptable? I would not mind the risk of being taxed a small amount when caught exceeding the usually arbitrary speed limits, but I strongly object to possibly losing my license (and livliehood) for no good reason.

If the government were honest about the purpose of the revenue raising cameras then I would have a lot more respect for them, just as I might have supported the war in Iraq had its aims been stated as supporting our American allies in their quest to free up the worlds oil supplies, rather than the fight against terrorism and WMD's...

[anonymous-user]

I would suggest it would be better to go the other way.

If people were awarded points only and there was no financial benefit involved, the Scamera partnerships would be out of business and location of speed enforcement would be handed back to the people that should handle it - the BiB.

As for the "What we want", look at the S.A.F.E.R. campaign and Autocar's Talking sense on speed manifesto.

Darran.

[g4ry13]

Also two speed limits for the road depending on weather conditions. They have this in France. One limit if it's raining and one for the dry. 70mph on a motorway in heavy rain is too fast sometimes and people are happy to drive at that speed; as they are comfortable with the knowledge that they are not breaking the speed limit, and not breaking the law.

[bga]

All good suggestions but I think point 12 (12) Tiered speed limits by vehicle capability and driver skill level) would be unenforcable. A higher standard of driver education (supported by point 10) should in theory reduce the difference of those with different abilities to handle vehicles in a range of conditions and situations

[flat in fifth]

I think that point 3)is fair except that too often in our area we get cameras installed at the same time as road engineering.

My argument is that if road engineering is expected to improve a dangerous junction (1) then why are cameras needed at the same time. Surely the effect of the engineering should be allowed to be seen before the camera is installed?

(1) eg admittedly dangerous double crossroads on a fast dual modified by extra turning / filter lanes and traffic lights. So why the scamera van installed at the same time?

[Peter Ward]

bga said:

All good suggestions but I think point 12 (12) Tiered speed limits by vehicle capability and driver skill level) would be unenforcable...

It's just an idea. As speeding tickets are issued automatically or by police with DVLA links, then the vehicle type is known and the owner is known too. You can put everything together to determine the applicable limit. Of course the owner is not necessarily the driver, but hey, we've been there before!

[Peter Ward]

LexSport said:

As for the "What we want", look at the S.A.F.E.R. campaign and Autocar's Talking sense on speed manifesto. Darran.

According to the Autocar website, the "Talking sense on speed" manifesto "calls for a halt to the over-reliance on speed cameras — the number of tickets issued has doubled since ’95 — and education rather than penalties".

That's a good start. But I'm trying to think more radically. At present we have low limits increasingly rigidly enforced. What could change?

1) A restructuring of limits resulting in lower urban limits and higher dual-carriageway/M-way limits, still rigidly enforced
Result: some success, but Talivans and Gatsos remain
2) Same limits, but less rigidly enforced
Result: driver confusion, cop-out by government
3) As option 1 but less rigidly enforced
Result: pigs might fly...

What else is realistically likely? Removal of limits with punishments for dangerous driving increased? IAM members getting more lenient treatment? Subsidised track days? (). I just don't see anything like this happening...