Signs that show your speed.

Lum

art_for_arts_sake wrote: »

you can't be charged for speeding on a bike.

Yes you can, unless you mean a pushbike.

And you can get done by automated cameras, though admittedly only rear facing ones.

Johnmcl7

Lum wrote: »

Yes you can, unless you mean a pushbike.

And you can get done by automated cameras, though admittedly only rear facing ones.

Motorcyclists have been caught by front facing Truvelos as well although it's not as easy without the number plate. Police kept details of bikes going through Truvelos at speed which they checked when they pulled a biker to see if any of the details matched.

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/General-news/2009/August/aug2709-bikers-caught-by-front-facing-cameras/

There was another one where the motorcyclist was carrying out wheelies showing going past the camera who was caught in similar circumstances.

John

Throbbe

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

There was some 2008 research on speed indicator devices in London which showed that the speed reducing effect tended to wear off after 2 weeks. I've not been able to find any evidence that vehicle activated signs are more effective at reducing speeds than speed cameras. This information sheet from road safety charity Roadpeace provides a good summary and is fully referenced:

http://www.roadpeace.org/resources/Cameras_cuts_and_casualties_Sept_2010.pdf

I've seen similar evidence from a local authority I did some work for, although they were still seeing a reduction in 85%ile speeds three months after installation, just not as significant a reduction as in the first few weeks.

They tend to regard them as a temporary(-ish) measure, so after a year or two they'll be removed and used elsewhere. Quite often they'll be sited at the request of a councillor (subject to checks that vehicles are speeding and that it's a safe location to mount the sign).

JCP

We used to have the speed flashing signs on my 30mph road.
I regularly walked past and witnessed speeds in excess of 40, and on exhuberant Saturday evenings these were frequently 60+mph.

After 6 weeks or so, the police finally responded to complaints of speeding by setting up a 1hr speed trap on a Sunday lunchtime.

According to the local paper, 7 drivers were done for speeds in excess of 60mph.
3 of these were over 70mph, 1 of which was over 80mph.
On a 30mph road.
In 1 hour.

It is a genuine 30 zone, houses both sides, old folks home etc but it seems that a lot of people treated the flashing speed sign as a game to see who could make it go highest.
It has now been replaced by a badly calibrated sign which flashes up the 30mph warning when you are doing as little as 25mph - this in turn leads everyone to simply ignore it. Complete waste of time and money and I'd be happier with a regular speed trap or a camera.

Norman_Castle

I've just had one of these signs planted near my house. It's not switched on yet. It's a busy 30mph road. Most cars do 40 mph and despite already speeding and numerous reasons not to overtake, junctions, crossings, school entrance etc, cars doing 40 mph are regularly overtaken. It will be interesting to see if the dangerous overtaking increases when the compliant drivers slow to 30 mph.

Mids_Costcutter

Lum wrote: »

I like these signs, and they do make a difference if done right. It's like asking nicely whereas the speed camera option means that a week later you get a telling off and end up moaning about it.

If the area is genuinely dangerous to drive fast through, then telling someone off a week after the event isn't going to protect anyone's kid who might be in the road.

Problem is there's no money in it, whereas speed awareness courses are currently a nice little earner for the council even if fixed penalties no longer are.

A nice little earner for the council? In Warwickshire they charge £80 for a half-day course. I imagine that won't much more than cover the costs for the local authority once admin, planning etc. is taken into account. For the motorist though isn't it a good deal? Avoid paying a £60 fixed penalty and 3 points on your licence (with associated increase in insurance).

However shouldn't the main aim be to improve driver behaviour by stopping speeding? That would save us all money.

mikey72

Lum wrote: »

I like these signs, and they do make a difference if done right. It's like asking nicely whereas the speed camera option means that a week later you get a telling off and end up moaning about it.

If the area is genuinely dangerous to drive fast through, then telling someone off a week after the event isn't going to protect anyone's kid who might be in the road.

Problem is there's no money in it, whereas speed awareness courses are currently a nice little earner for the council even if fixed penalties no longer are.

If you're drively badly enough to kill anyones kid playing in the road, a fine and a few points isn't enough. But the good thing is they add up, so eventually the kids will be safe again. So, the speed camera is a good option from that point of view.

Stephen_Leak

Bongles wrote: »

I'm not sure if it's what you meant to say, but just to be clear...

The 'right speed' is the speed at which you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear and can reasonably expect to remain clear. The speed limit, your speedometer and flashing signs by the side of the road can not help you with this. Hazards that demand driving slower than the speed limit are everywhere and someone driving at the speed limit in the vicinity of such hazards is not driving at the right speed.

You should always drive within the prevailing road conditions. The speed limit is one of these.

Stephen_Leak

sarahg1969 wrote: »

Of course they are.

Driving at 40 outside a primary school at kicking out time is not sensible. But the signs are still smiling.

The same signs will frown at drivers doing 41 at 3am.

Then it sounds like a good place for one of those switchable 20mph limits.

Lum

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

A nice little earner for the council? In Warwickshire they charge £80 for a half-day course. I imagine that won't much more than cover the costs for the local authority once admin, planning etc. is taken into account.

The price of those courses varies massively if you shop around. Some are as low as £65, some are £130. There's only a few companies that do them (AA Drivetech and TTC being the main ones) and they're all roughly the same content and length, so someone somewhere is making a profit out of them, though possibly not Warwickshire.

However shouldn't the main aim be to improve driver behaviour by stopping speeding? That would save us all money.

Improve driver behaviour yes, and from what I'm told (never been on one) the content of the course is actually quite good, focusses on a lot more than just sticking to the speed limit, something which is only a contributory factor in 4% of KSI collisions. (source: DFT)

My issue with the courses is purely about how they get people onto them, and the bloody obvious jump in speed awareness thresholds that occurred at around the time that responsibility for funding the camera partnerships was moved to the councils.

If you don't believe me, FOI your favourite camera partnerships and ask them what the threshold for a speed awareness course is in each speed limit, and for the history of that threshold over the last few years.

Obviously some are taking the mick more than others. Warwickshire seem to be one of the better ones so maybe try a different one.