Speeding? Manned equipment.

Uxb

Froggitt wrote: »

Or, get rid of all the speed cameras. Then there would be no speed cameras.

Oxfordshire did.
They announced it was for a test period both fixed and mobile cameras.

During that period
Deaths on the road went up.
Several cameras were left running recording the speed but obviously not recording the details of the vehicles. They recorded a significant increase in speed by motorists - ie over the speed limit.

The result
The cameras came back as obviously the local's driving deteriorated when they are not continuously being monitored.

The world has changed since both you (and me) started driving in 1980. Speeding above the speed limit is not longer acceptable. I suggest you switch off your radio and concentrate on the road, others on it and near it - and your speed.

Jamie_Carter

AdrianC wrote: »

Congratulations. You did read my post.



Some are. Some are decided by political knee-jerk. Some are decided by default.



Nor is a speed below the limit inherently safe.
Nor is a speed in excess of the limit inherently unsafe.

"Speeding" - exceeding the speed limit - is, in and of itself, a purely administrative offence. It completely ignores inappropriately high speeds which are within the limit. If a speed is unsafe for the conditions, then "speeding" isn't even the most appropriate offence. Careless driving or dangerous driving are more appropriate.

We are going around in circles again.


Speed limits are generic, and in most cases are set at a sensible level for the road layout, for average conditions. It is then up to the driver to use common sense when encountered with road conditions that call for a lower speed.


It is NOT left up to drivers to decide if they should drive over the speed limit, because many think their driving skills are far higher than they actually are. And most don't understand how speed differential affects the mechanisms of injury, leading to far more fatalities the bigger the speed differential.

brat

We need to respect the speed limits in the area, but drive with our full concentration applied to the relevant road hazards of that area. What tends to happen when we drive in this way is that our speed fluctuates naturally to accommodate the changing hazard picture ahead.
This is the best and safest way to drive, to immerse yourself in the recognition and anticipation of relevant road hazards and deal with them instinctively. Many of us do this quite naturally, especially when driving through a built up area, with speed changing accordingly.

This safe style of driving has a tendency to conflict, not so much with the purpose of the speed limit, but the enforcement of it. Every now and then, this safe driver will remain immersed for too long in this optimal driving mode and fail to realise that diminishing hazards have caused speed naturally and safely to increase to a marginal level above the relevant limit. This is the 'fish in a barrel' zone for speed cameras, and predictably, it's precisely where most of them are located.

Unfortunately, in doing so, the speed camera is messing with the safest driving practices of the safest drivers on the road.
At the same time those who consciously and perhaps aggressively choose to bring inappropriate speed to the road, do so with increased impunity because of the predictability of speed prosecution locations.

AdrianC

So how come THIS most certainly applies...

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

It is then up to the driver to use common sense when encountered with road conditions that call for a lower speed.

...yet this allegedly applies...

It is NOT left up to drivers to decide if they should drive over the speed limit, because many think their driving skills are far higher than they actually are. And most don't understand how speed differential affects the mechanisms of injury, leading to far more fatalities the bigger the speed differential.

...when the only difference is how their speed relates to an arbitrary number on a stick?

So let's picture a stretch of road which might be perfectly appropriate at 45mph, yet have a 60 limit one day and a 30 limit the next. Hardly a huge stretch of the imagination, given how many roads have had big changes in limit over the last few years. So it'd be OK for the driver to decide that 45 is safe on the first day, but if the same driver decides 35 is safe the next day, then you'd castigate him for that?

I'm not saying the limit should be ignored. I'm saying it's just one of many factors which helps the competent driver decide what's an appropriate speed for any given stretch of road. It's not even necessarily the most important.

Jamie_Carter

AdrianC wrote: »

So how come THIS most certainly applies...



...yet this allegedly applies...

...when the only difference is how their speed relates to an arbitrary number on a stick?

So let's picture a stretch of road which might be perfectly appropriate at 45mph, yet have a 60 limit one day and a 30 limit the next. Hardly a huge stretch of the imagination, given how many roads have had big changes in limit over the last few years. So it'd be OK for the driver to decide that 45 is safe on the first day, but if the same driver decides 35 is safe the next day, then you'd castigate him for that?

I'm not saying the limit should be ignored. I'm saying it's just one of many factors which helps the competent driver decide what's an appropriate speed for any given stretch of road. It's not even necessarily the most important.

As I said, many people don't understand the effect of speed differential has the most affect on mechanisms of injury. So the safest way for people to drive is at around the same speed. This also allows drivers to concentrate more on other hazards, instead of having to use a great deal of concentration on all the other traffic on the same carriageway.


If a speed limit has been changed overnight from 60 to 30, then this is because the risk on that stretch of road has been reassessed, probably due to incidents that have occurred. You are not qualified, or have the relevant data to decide for yourself that you should decide your own speed limit.

Jamie_Carter

Froggitt wrote: »

If Im that lucky (say 15,000 miles a year for 30 years), then Im going down WIlly Hill this afters, putting on a treble of Villa to win the Premiership, Joey Essex for next Countdown presenter, and Stephen Hawking to win the next series of X-Factor.

Oh dear. Another of those people who thinks that because they have been driving for many years without incident, that they are an excellent driver. The fact that you were caught for speeding without realising it says that your awareness is lacking. Maybe it's time to have your driving reassessed. Mine is assessed on a regular basis.

brat

No-one argues against the fact that the more speed you bring into a collision, the worse the worse it is likely to be.

But a committee decision on coarse arbitrary speed limit numbers creates no more than a proxy for desired skill based safe driving behaviours. For that reason and especially if safety is their goal, the enforcers of the limits should understand the skill mechanisms, mind driving and driving attitude that together create an appropriate 'safe speed'. Enforcement for safety should not interfere with the compliant driver's safe driving barometer.

Unfortunately it does, as I explained in my previous post. What's worse is that, if safety is their purpose, the automated speed enforcement industry completely misses their target group. These are those whose inappropriate speed creates huge danger on the road. They either don't care about being caught by the camera (twoccers etc) or go out of their way to avoid them (boy racers, sports motor cyclists).

I'm afraid that, in their rush to maximise profits, the safety camera industry have left road safety languishing on the 'to-do' list.

Jamie_Carter

brat wrote: »

No-one argues against the fact that the more speed you bring into a collision, the worse the worse it is likely to be.

But a committee decision on coarse arbitrary speed limit numbers creates no more than a proxy for desired skill based safe driving behaviours. For that reason and especially if safety is their goal, the enforcers of the limits should understand the skill mechanisms, mind driving and driving attitude that together create an appropriate 'safe speed'. Enforcement for safety should not interfere with the compliant driver's safe driving barometer.

Unfortunately it does, as I explained in my previous post. What's worse is that, if safety is their purpose, the automated speed enforcement industry completely misses their target group. These are those whose inappropriate speed creates huge danger on the road. They either don't care about being caught by the camera (twoccers etc) or go out of their way to avoid them (boy racers, sports motor cyclists).

I'm afraid that, in their rush to maximise profits, the safety camera industry have left road safety languishing on the 'to-do' list.

So what do you suggest, different speed limits for different drivers??


Or leave it up to the driver to decide, so that those who wrongly class themselves as good drivers (even though their awareness is so bad that they can't spot a speed camera van)??


By the way, most injuries in RTCs are caused by speed differential, not just speed. In other words, the closing speed between two vehicles, or a vehicle and an object/pedestrian that it collides with. And we are not just talking about external injuries, or broken bones. If a vehicle hits a solid object at lets say 70mph, then the passengers internal organs will continue to try and carry on moving at 70mph (minus a certain amount of speed absorbed by crumple zones), causing massive internal injuries. This is a very common cause of fatalities in RTCs. And this is why certain criteria for hazards at the roadside have been brought in for determining speed limits.

Froggitt

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1174266/Tables-turned-speed-trap-operators-caught-camera-hiding-sign.html

Froggitt

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Or leave it up to the driver to decide, so that those who wrongly class themselves as good drivers (even though their awareness is so bad that they can't spot a speed camera van)??

Don't worry......my awareness has been shifted from nuns and kittens and kids to camera vans now.