GPS, Speed Cameras and Cars

[Ships_Cat]

So how many people do you think is acceptable to be killed to which the speed limit should set too? If zero is all that is acceptable then the speed limit is zero - it is all downhill from there.

I take it from your response that you think that the deaths from "speed" occuring at or under current speed limits is acceptable?

Setting speed limits is all to do with meeting a perceived acceptable death toll. The emphasis given to severe policing of speed limits entirely overwhelms the more important road safety factors and as can be seen from many posters in this forum there becomes a belief that speed limit is safe, over the speed limit is unsafe and that all regardless of the circumstances. You can see this attitude expressed on the roads of any country that I have been to.

Most people I hear who have a concern about the emphasis on policing speed instead of other road behaviours are the first to say that speed limits are often too fast under certain conditions (even said by some on here). Most poeple I hear who believe in severe policing of speed limits seem to think speed limit is always ok, but 1 MPH over is never ok and I suspect most drive like that regardless.

Driver education, safety improvements in cars and road improvements will always be the best approach. If you don't believe me then consider rally drivers - they drive very fast but only rarely kill themselves. All to do with training, vehicle safety and control of road conditions.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>I am the cat but I am only 6.

 

[charles_reed]

Pride cometh before a fall

so look out

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ColinMorris]

Quote from previous post:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't drive far these days, but I used to clock up a number of miles on dual carridgeways and motorway - there are times when it is dangerous to go below 70!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd be interested to hear what these are.






<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[CliveA]

Re: Pride cometh before a fall

What?

Nothing to do with pride, I'm afraid.

There's nothing 'proud', 'sanctimonius' or 'lentil-waving' about simply having the reasonable belief that having to stick to speed limits is not really a problem if it contributes to a bit more safety on the roads. No big deal.

Oh, and you might like to know that I have already 'fallen', as you you put it. The difference being that after I got my speeding ticket, I paid up, accepted I had made a mistake, got my points and took responsibility, rather than harping on for ever about 'being bled dry by government roadside cash machines' and all that tedious whinging nonsense.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Allegro]

> But why do you NEED to go 80/90/100? Why do you NEED to go 35?
> It seems an odd thing to fight for...

Well, you clearly NEED to go at some speed or another. All we're talking about is what an approptiate one would be. Imagine there were no speed limits and you were about to introduce them. Have a think about what speeds would be appropriate for different types of road at different times of day. To define appropriate you're clearly making a judgement of an "acceptable" degree of risk of accident. Having chosen your acceptable risk level, you then need to work out the speed that causes that risk for each road type.

My own feeling is that the risks of driving on a very busy motorway in a wet rush-hour are probably quite high, and a speed limit quite significantly below the current 70 may be appropriate. On the other hand I suspect an empty motorway on a dry night is a much safer place, therefore one could probably drive a lot faster than 70 without reaching the "acceptable" risk that we defined earlier.

Clearly 70 is more dangerous than 60, and 60 more than 50... That argument goes on right down to 0, hence the need for the "acceptable risk" argument above which, if actually applied, would, I suspect, lead to rather different speed limits than we see today.

Cheers
Patrick

<hr width=100% size=1>Sailing a Victoire 25 on the Scottish West Coast

 

[jfm]

Re: Pride cometh before a fall

Hmmm. Your argument holds up CliveA only because of the premise upon which it's based. The premise (I think) is that sticiking to the speed limit is appropriately safe and exceeding them caused unreasonable danger.

But that isn't correct imho, for reasons in my post above. What a driver ought to do is keep risk to a reasonably low level, so as to endanger fellow citizens only a tiny bit. A chunk of that is achieved by having a decent car, no bald tyres etc. As far as speed is concerned it is achieved by driving at say 20mph max past the school, or at 120mph max at 2am on quiet motorway, or at 70mph on busy motorway, etc etc. It would be an incredible coincidence if it were achieved by sticking to the statutory limit, wouldn't it?

In other words I'm saying that driving at the statutory speed limit (a) exposes others to too much risk in some circs, (b) exposes them to less than the "accepted" risk in other circs, and (c) occasionally, gets it spot on right.

As for tickets, this is England and you're innocent unless convicted. When I was last accused by the police of speeding - without the requisite evidence btw, I pleaded not guilty, took the case to court, 2 hearings, was acquitted and got my legal costs refunded by the public purse. A whole load of wasted time and money caused by some rather stupid traffic cops. Fortunately it didn't waste any of my time, lawyers attended court on my behalf, all paid for by the public purse as I say. But it would have been much more fruitful if the cops concerned were deployed to catching muggers and burglars.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jfm]

Exactly, Allegro.

Incidentally, French motorways have diffrent limits for wet vs dry.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[CliveA]

Re: Pride cometh before a fall

jfm - Nice to hear from someone who can read a whole post and respond with a reasoned argument, even if we disagree!

I take your point completely, but I would never advocate that driving at the speed limit will solve all road safety problems. Of course not. Neither am I suggesting that driving to the very maximum allowed is always safe (the oft-quoted and valid 'outside a school' example).

Sticking to speed limits will not end all risks, all accidents and all fatalities. But while it solves some of them (which it undeniably does), it has to be a good thing. It's a great idea to suggest that all drivers should drive carefully, attentively and appropriately for the conditions, but it's unrealistic. Most drivers are flawed, ourselves included. And if mistakes are going to happen (which they are), I would rather they happen at a speed which means there's a better chance of survival.

I may have to sacrifice my 'freedom' and leave for work 5 minutes earlier, but I reckon that's worth it.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[CliveA]

Re: Pride cometh before a fall

Sorry Allegro. Hadn't spotted your post when I replied to jfm.

Again, I like your reasoning, but can't agree 100%.

The law might tell me 70mph. An intelligent appraisal of the conditions may tell me 85mph. But I don't care enough about that extra 15mph to worry about driving at 70 and avoid the speed cameras.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Allegro]

Re: Pride cometh before a fall

> The law might tell me 70mph. An intelligent appraisal of the conditions may tell
> me 85mph. But I don't care enough about that extra 15mph to worry about
> driving at 70 and avoid the speed cameras.

Clive,

I agree entirely that, given the speed limits that exist, its up to you whether you want to take the chance of being caught going faster when your own "intelligent appraisal" has told you that 85 (say) is an acceptably safe speed for the current conditions.

The important distinction, however, is that those who are going at 85 have merely chosen to run a risk of getting caught, not an unacceptably high risk of having an accident. So they're not driving dangerously, merely illegally. You yourself have agreed that, for those conditions, 85 is an acceptably safe speed.

Cheers
Patrick

<hr width=100% size=1>Sailing a Victoire 25 on the Scottish West Coast

 

[jfm]

Re: Pride cometh before a fall

Yes, all ok to disagree CliveA

I find your thinking a bit mixed up though. We all agreed that zero is the safest speed, and risk increases as speed rises. There is a "threshold speed" for any given conditions above which risk to others becomes too high. The threshold speed in the school case might be 20mph, say.

As allegro points out, even you judge that on ocassion 85 is the threshold speed. So I think you must agree that it's just a coincidence if the legal limit coincides with the threshold speed. Now if you choose in those circumstances to travel at 70mph, the 15mph reduction below the threshold is just a personal choice, nothing to do with safety, just your desire not to get caught by camera, right? But in that case aren't you wrong to criticise -on safety grounds- the person who is happy to gamble his licence (or knows good lawyers...) and who therefore does 85?

You can't justify your choice to do 70 by saying it's a bit safer than 85, becuase 60 is a bit safer than 70, so why dont you do 60 and leave for work a further 3.5 minutes earlier?

Incidentally, and thread drifting a bit, a category of speeding that concerns me terribly is police Astras (and other "shopping" cars) screeching around town centres at 60mph ish responding to emergency calls or chasing suspects around. I would be NEVER drive a car at a speed that carried the same risk of mashing up a pedestrian that 6Omph in an town centre Astra represents. Imho 130 on the M6 toll at night in a supercar is an order of magnitude safer than the 60mph urban Astra. Yet the Astra is a common sight, it seems to me.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[rickp]

Re: Pride cometh before a fall

Judging by the way speed limits are dropping all over the place, I think the '50 is safer than 60', '40 is safer than 50' etc. thinking is somewhat rampant.

If this continues, soon we'll be doing 70 on motorways and 30 everywhere else

Rick

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[CliveA]

Re: Pride cometh before a fall

Patrick and jfm - Well put. Good points.

I guess then the next question is that all if all drivers feel empowered to judge an appropriate speed for themselves, a very large proportion will make an utterly wrong decision. Does maintaining speed limits provide some kind of back up (granted, not a 100% effective one) to prevent anyone and everyone from conning themselves into thinking their judgement is always sound? Yes they can still drive inappropriately within the limit, but at least a line is drawn somewhere.

And on the point of a carefully judged 85 mph being a matter of being caught, rather than being unsafe - Once again, I see your point. I suppose what really bothers me are the types who, after taking that risk and getting caught, then proceed to harp on and on Daily-Mail-style about the 'oppressive nature of the powers that be imposing stealth taxes from the hedgerows!'

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Allegro]

Re: Pride cometh before a fall

Hi Clive,

I agree with you many drivers, myself included, are going to get the appropriate speed judgement wrong at times. What I'd really like to see is speed limits giving useful guidance to this judgement rather than being the inflexible and sometimes rather arbitrary seeming figures that they are at present. Good use of variable speed limits where they are possible would be a start, but sadly seems to be rarely used effectively.

Cheers
Patrick

<hr width=100% size=1>Sailing a Victoire 25 on the Scottish West Coast

 

[Observer]

Re: Pride cometh before a fall

I agree with jfm but go somehwat further. "Safe speed" is actually far more variable than "70mph on a busy motorway" or any other arbitrary value. The maximum safe speed is that at which "you can stop comfortably, on your own side of the road, in the distance that you can see to be clear and can predict (with reasonable certainty) will remain clear". So 'safe speed' is constantly varying. It varies because of the approaching crossroads (you slow down, because it's not safe to go straight across); because of the pedal cycle ahead (you slow down because you need to give the cycle more wobble room and there's a vehicle approaching from the other direction); because of the car turning out of the junction ahead (you slow down because if you don't, you'll run into the back of it).

Drivers are constantly making safe speed judgments and changing their speed accordingly. Sometimes they get it wrong but all drivers (even bad ones) get it right most of the time (nobody who's not totally insane sets out to have a crash). The reason crashes happen is nearly always a failure of observation/attention rather than failure to choose a safe speed. If a hazard is not observed, it's pretty obvious that the driver can't set the safe speed necessary to negotiate it.

This is not to say thay speed limits are unnecessary. They are an important and necessary guide to safe speeds for new or inexperienced drivers and are a useful early warning of increased hazard density to experienced drivers. However, experienced drivers who have well developed hazard perception faculties will choose safe speeds not by reference to the speed limit but from experience and intelligent observation and anticipation.

Have a look at <A target="_blank" HREF=http://aflcharters.co.uk>Dream Dancer

 

[Superstrath]

Re: Pride cometh before a fall

This has been interesting while I've been driving around Holland, discussing speed cameras and bad driving with a colleague. I've just driven from Newcastle, in increasingly foul weather, very strong winds and lashing rain, the road was awash at times. I drove at 60-70 mph depending on the rain, in a properly maintained, newish, super-safe car. We were passed repeatedly by older vehicles travelling at speeds, I would guess, up to 90mph, leaving a wake behind them because of the rain. These people should have their licences taken away for such behaviour, but they would get the same fine and three points, regardless of the conditions, if they were caught. This I find difficult to reconcile with the intention to make our roads safer merely by policing speed with static cameras.
BTW, I saw Cumbria's camera van and gave it a wee wave. There are loads of Gatsos in Holland, I noticed, now that I have such an interest in them.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jfm]

Re: Pride cometh before a fall

Superstrath, agree your comments on 90mph+ in heavy rain and standing water, the dry vs wet behaviour of most cars is massively different.

But are you mad? Driving Newcastle to Holland. Yikes! You can fly, you know. I go all over the place but only drive 6 or 7k miles pa, let someone else drive the car/plane/train, man! Then you can spend the time working, so leaving more time for the boat. All those hours behind the wheel are hours that could be spent on the boat, imho

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Superstrath]

Re: Pride cometh before a fall

jfm,

I usually do fly - I was in Amsterdam last week - but sometimes need to take/bring equipment, so the overnight ferry from Newcastle is great. 30 minute drive to the Dutch office at the other end. On the other hand, with call diversion, fax diversion, e-mail on the laptop/phone, I can go sailing during the week and just run the office from the boat, and no-one's any the wiser!
Regarding the wet/dry, if you switch from ultra-soft slicks to wets on a race car, times increase by 12-15%, and is all lost on braking distances and speed on corners. The effect on road cars must be similar.
On the original subject, I was on an autobahn last week, and the speed differences between, say, a slow truck and a speeding Merc was startling, quite scary really, so I don't think unlimited speed is a good idea.

<hr width=100% size=1>