Speed traps could be replaced with "fairer" cameras.

tomstickland

Originally Posted by tomstickland
Something that actually focusses on the problem, not insults the intelligence of the other 99.99% who use the road.

OK so how do we address the problem of those drivers.

Maybe we can't.

Originally Posted by tomstickland
Now, ideally, this would be an attitude and education based thing.

And once you have achieved that can I have the moon on a stick as well.

I said "ideally" and surely that has to be the long term aim, otherwise we might as well decide that everything in life is too complicated and dangerous. Maybe electric hedge trimmers should be banned because one or two people have injured themselves with them.

Originally Posted by tomstickland
The road layout itself might not be ideal.

So what do you want to do with this straight road with a T junction, stick a roundabout in or what? Is this going to be better than a speed limit.

In some cases visibility is poor, so someone pulling out cannot see far enough, or approaching traffic cannot see the junction until they are on it.

Originally Posted by tomstickland
Declutter the roads of their pointless signs, but use warning signs where there is a real risk. So a "dangerous junction" sign.

So the speeding idiot who doesn't notice the car about to move out is going to pay attention to a sign. Optimistic doesn't come into it.

Why is this "speeding idiot" going to take any notice of a lower speed limit?

Maybe I'm too optimistic, but most responsible people will respond to a clear risk far better than a badly considered speed limit. With the latter they'll tend to ignore it and the hazard.

Originally Posted by tomstickland
We need to move away from the lazy assumption that "accidents just happen". One or both parties will have made a mistake.

Correct, the idiots speeding past the car trying to pull out and the person pulling out misjudging the speed of that driver.

I've seen a near miss where I was following a slow moving car. They were so slow that a driver on a side road lost patience and pulled out at the last moment. They clearly misjudged the speed of the oncoming vehicle and then the driver of the slow vehicle was so unaware that they almost collided and had to stand hard on the brakes. Two unaware drivers. A 50 or 40 limit would have made no difference to them.

Originally Posted by tomstickland
I detest the hang wringing and laziness associated with the calls that "something must be done" and the resulting inappropriate solutions.

But you seem to be hang wringing about the one solution that would have some success for this problem.

If you think that my "dangerous junction" sign is laughably optimistic, why would a set of signs with a number written on them make any difference?


Just as an aside, on my way to work there is a T junction. It's all NSL, but I slow down for it, because to go past it at 60mph would create a feeling of unease. Other parts of the road can be safely negotiated the NSL.

Now, lets imagine that there are two accidents at this juncion. One was a car full of youths in the early hours of the morning ploughing into the hedge and another was someone pulling out because they didn't see a motorbike.

The local paper would then report these and someone would appear out of the woodwork saying "this is an accident black spot, something must be done, you should see the speeds that cars do down there."

A few months later someone decides that all 4 miles of the road should be made "safe" by lowering the limit. Have they dealt with the true causes of the problem? Could they ever? Have they made the road safer? The only benefit that could occur would be if all of the traffic obeyed the limit in which case any collisions would be at lower speeds.
Why punish the majority for the stupidity of a minority?

Oddly enough, there are some studies that have found a worse accident record in cases where limits have been reduced too much.

tomstickland

Altarf wrote: »

If the problem is that people are going past a junction at an inappropriate speed when a car waiting to pull out, then reducing the speed of vehicles going past the junction (irrespective whether there is a car waiting to pull out or not) will alter the number of deaths at the junction.

And if your next argument is that introducing a speed limit will not reduce speed, then the obvious solution is a camera. Which takes us back to post 1.

If you want to follow that to it's totalitarian conclusion then have a 20 limit past every side road on every road and have an average speed camera for every one of those. That's the way the government think.

My approach would say slow down if there is a vehicle there. Call it third sense, sometimes you just have a felling. Other times it might be totally clear, so what's the point in slowing down as much if there's nothing there?

The vast majority of people can cope with this and have done so for many years.

A far better solution (in the idealistic future world) is to adopt an attitude of responsibility and personal risk control.

Altarf

tomstickland wrote: »

My approach would say slow down if there is a vehicle there. Call it third sense, sometimes you just have a felling. Other times it might be totally clear, so what's the point in slowing down as much if there's nothing there?

And you don't have accidents so we don't have to worry about you, we have to deal with the people who don't slow down if there is a vehicle there.

tomstickland wrote: »

A far better solution (in the idealistic future world) is to adopt an attitude of responsibility and personal risk control.

Moon on a stick again.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

Altarf wrote: »

And you don't have accidents so we don't have to worry about you, we have to deal with the people who don't slow down if there is a vehicle there.

And the best way to deal with those is with better training, and more intelligent enforcement of road safety. A police officer can educate a driver on the error of his/her ways. Maybe they'll learn something, fine or not. A speed camera will just turn them against the police - and speed cameras don't detect excessive speeds under the speed limit.

Altarf

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

And the best way to deal with those is with better training, and more intelligent enforcement of road safety. A police officer can educate a driver on the error of his/her ways. Maybe they'll learn something, fine or not.

Sorry, yet more wishful thinking, and expensive wishful thinking at that.

tomstickland

Thread crossover:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1275331

moonrakerz

The whole "speeding" debate is driven by:

a. Government: to get revenue.
b. The Police: to get "convictions" to meet targets.
c: "Safety Camera Partnerships": self justification/preservation.

The Government and the Police talk about 30% (or more) of accidents being caused by "speeding" and "excessive speed" - this is done to make people think that this means exceeding the speed limit - this is just not the case.

Less than 5% of accidents involve (not caused by, even) vehicles exceeding the speed limit. So if everyone drove within the speed limit accidents would fall by 5% - that is assuming that every accident was actually caused by the act of exceeding the speed limit !

Why don't they concentrate on the other 95% ???

Durham Police did a survey of accidents in their county: 3% down to exceeding the speed limit, over 40% to drink ! Would more policemen waving breathalisers be a better way of reducing road accidents ? Sorry - not much of a "revenue stream" there !

"Speed Kills" - surely the most inane statement of the last hundred years ! Everything that moves has "speed", if we didn't have "speed" the country would grind to a halt - literally !

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

Altarf wrote: »

Sorry, yet more wishful thinking, and expensive wishful thinking at that.

There is nothing wrong with wishful thinking, and nothing which suggests that wishful thinking is futile.

I'll point out that a traffic officer caught Peter Sutcliffe, on a random traffic stop.

banger9365

speed do's not kill the moron behide the wheel kills ,that the one we need to change

michaels

What worries me about the 'enforce the speed limit' argument is there is no discussion about what a suitable speed is for the conditions. If there is a single 100% enforced limit then it would need to be set to the worse possible conditions to make sure no one is driving too fast ever - may be 5mph to account for the possibility of ice, snow, fog and drunken pedestrians?

Of course set the limit this low and everyone will ignore it as 99.99% of the time it is patently stupid. Hence the argument for traffic police not camera enforecment and why the 'cameras are the answer' brigade scare me - there are many time when 70 on a motorway or 30 in a residential area are too fast but no one needs fear being prosecuted for this whereas at other times 35 on an urban duel carriage way or 75 on the motorway are completely safe but would be caught and prosecuted by cameras. I can not see that camera enforcement is the answer.