[Closed] Average speed cameras work. Are they even on ?

Still waiting for you to explain why it's not safe just because there are signs with 50 on.

It's LESS safe to be going faster; it's LESS safe because people will be expecting you to be doing broadly near 50.

Driving is never safe, it's not a case of being perfectly fine at 50 and deadly at 51.

But you know that, it's obvious, you are just playing reductio ad absurdum.

not blindly drive around believing that so long as I stick to at or below the posted limit then that makes me a safe driver, as so many on here seem to think.

Don't be stupid, that's not at all what we're saying.

Oh dear, oh dear.... so by that logic, by going faster than the speed limit, you're actually a safer driver? Seriously?

I don't know your driving history so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd hazzard a guess with the extra driver training I've done over the years then yes, there's probably a good chance I'm quite a bit safer than you at any speed.

Do an IAM driving course (or similar) and you will see how little you currently know about safety or driving. It opened my eyes (and my mind) and no doubt it might do the same for you.

rebel12 - Member

with the extra driver training I've done over the years then yes, there's probably a good chance I'm quite a bit safer than you at any speed.

well done you.

i'm sure you're an excellent driver, do you mind keeping your exuberance to the track?

Read a statistic somewhere that excess speed was only a factor in around 7% of all accidents. Yet there seems many on here who treat speed as the holy grail when it comes to road safety.

Which says to be that "excess speed" is a subjective definition which relies on speed being an obvious causative factor in a retrospective investigation.

on the other hand, the Transport Research Laboratory FIRMLY correlates speed with accident frequency:

[i]The scope for reducing accidents by means of speed
management depends on the operational characteristics
of the road. The percentage reduction in accident
frequency achievable per 1mile/h reduction in average
speed is between 2-7%. The earlier 5% figure remains a
robust
general
rule. The reduction achievable, however,
varies according to the road type and the average traffic
speed. Specifically, it is:

- about 6% for urban roads with low average speeds;

- about 4% for medium speed urban roads and lower
speed rural main roads;

- about 3% for the higher speed urban roads and rural
main roads.[/i]

I don't know your driving history so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd hazzard a guess with the extra driver training I've done over the years then yes, there's probably a good chance I'm quite a bit safer than you at any speed.

As I said a couple of pages back. The fact that you may be a safer/better driver at speed is irrelevant. Speed limits are not just about reducing speed and mitigating the severity of crashes, they are also about creating a standard and predictable environment on the roads which helps to prevent crashes. Do you accept this point?

Regardless of safety, there's another point.

You can't trust people to make their own judgement about speed. That's why we have limits.

The percentage reduction in accident
frequency achievable per 1mile/h reduction in average
speed is between 2-7% ... The reduction achievable, however,
varies according to the road type and the average traffic
speed. Specifically, it is:

- about 6% for urban roads with low average speeds;

- about 4% for medium speed urban roads and lower
speed rural main roads;

- about 3% for the higher speed urban roads and rural
main roads.

hang on, are those numbers [u]per[/u] mph reduction? - because that's how i'm reading it - that's massive!

**** me.

Don't be stupid, that's not at all what we're saying.

ahwiles - Member

rebel12 - Member

with the extra driver training I've done over the years then yes, there's probably a good chance I'm quite a bit safer than you at any speed.

well done you.

i'm sure you're an excellent driver, do you mind keeping your exuberance to the track?

In a similar vein I could say, do you mind keeping your low skilled ass off the road. See it sounds just as ridiculous doesn't it?

You can't trust people to make their own judgement about speed. That's why we have limits.

i'm suggesting that it's safer, and easy to stick to speed limits. legal oppurtunities do exist to drive as quickly as you want, they're called 'track days'/gokarting/mini-moto/etc.

you're asking me to not drive.

which one's ridiculous?

Lifer - Member

Really? I thought it was written on signs beside the road...

We weren't talking about the speed limit, do keep up (and the speed limit is not always on signs besides the road, their are other methods).

2000 people are killed every year by motor vehicles, the least we can do is question our national driving behaviour, which clearly sucks. Speeding is part of that.

That may be true, but I'd hazard it's far from being a primary cause. It's just the easiest to enforce. Until someone invents tailgating cameras, mobile phone cameras and not looking where you're bloody going cameras, "kill your speed" is going to remain a lead campaign.

The problem I have with that isn't "I want to drive fast" so much as, it's a smokescreen which diverts attention from other issues. The government get their PR as they are seen to be 'doing something' to improve road safety, but the upshot is that nothing ever really changes.

the Transport Research Laboratory FIRMLY correlates speed with accident frequency:

If I'm reading that correctly, they're saying that it has the least effect on high-speed carriageways. You'd think it'd be the other way around, wouldn't you?

Cougar - Moderator

That may be true, but I'd hazard it's far from being a primary cause

it appears to be a massive factor.

If I'm reading that correctly, they're saying that it has the least effect on high-speed carriageways. You'd think it'd be the other way around, wouldn't you?

rural road are the most dangerous.

It's LESS safe to be going faster

So let's get some blokes with red flags, as I suggested on the first page.

Driving is never safe, it's not a case of being perfectly fine at 50 and deadly at 51.

But you know that, it's obvious, you are just playing reductio ad absurdum.

Congratulations. How else am I supposed to argue when other people are suggesting the speed limit is black and white in terms of safety, that people who are capable of choosing an appropriate speed for the conditions all by themselves are dangerous loons?

it appears to be a massive factor.

7% according to the stats.

per mph...

The "speed kills" campaign ended years ago (replaced by the "Think" thing). It's a wonder they didn't just rename it "Inappropriate Speed Kills". It would have saved lots in re-design of existing ads, posters, info material etc. in fact, I'm on a phone so can't check. Was it ever the name of a campaign in this country of was it Australia, the US or somewhere else?

Speed limits are not just about reducing speed and mitigating the severity of crashes, they are also about creating a standard and predictable environment on the roads which helps to prevent crashes. Do you accept this point?

Not unless you've got some sort of evidence to back that up. It might arguably be a side effect but I'm not aware that that's why they're in place. If that were the case, we'd have the same limit for all classes of traffic.

Historically, speed limits were introduced to stop motor manufacturers using the motorway as a test track. It's obviously evolved since then though.

but it is the broad message given by the whole 'speed kills' campaign that conveniently ignores the more dangerous problem of shoddy driving and inattention that is causal in many many accidents

I completely disagree. In all the campaigns I've seen I cannot ever remember thinking that was the message. I think you are deliberately distorting the message to justify what you want to be doing. Actually it may not be deliberate, you may be doing it subconsciously.

but is hard to monetise so not so attractive to the policy makers

1) This is complete paranoid garbage. If they really wanted to make tons of money from speeding motorists they could do a hell of a lot more, like put vans on the A48 in Cardiff for example.

2) What's so bad about the police making money from law breakers? They don't put the money in their trouser pocket you know, it gets spent on policing. I'm sure many of the people bleating about making money from traffic fines would be the first to complain about poorly funded police forces when someone commits a crime against them...

ahwiles - Member

i'm suggesting that it's safer, and easy to stick to speed limits.

you're asking me to not drive.

which one's ridiculous?

To be honest with the lack of interest you have shown in improving your own driving skills the I'd probably prefer it if you didn't drive anywhere near me. You may think you're a good driver because you passed your test but all that confirms is that you have reached the very minimum standard at some point in the dim and distant past. Do yourself and the rest of us a favour and at the very least, get yourself a refresher lesson.

Like I've said before, not breaking the limit does not make you a safe driver or even a safer driver. I have seen many more cases of incredibly dangerous driving at speeds way below the limit than I have above it. Naturally, less skilled drivers tend to drive slower so maybe this is why? Slower though does not make the roads safer for the rest of us if they do something stupid, even at very low speed.

edlong - Member

If you're driving sensibly, the limit on any modern car might as well be in a different galaxy. You don't need to worry about it unless you're racing. If you're driving anywhere near the limit of your car's capabilities on a public road then you're a danger to yourself and everyone else. Go to a track if you want to do this.

The limits of a car's capabilities change constantly and dramatically due to changes in the road, so I'll ask you again: how do you know where those limits are?
To be frank, you sound like exactly the sort of person who is going to get caught out.
I've seen a car end up on it's roof at no more than 20mph.

That may be true, but I'd hazard it's far from being a primary cause. It's just the easiest to enforce. Until someone invents tailgating cameras, mobile phone cameras and not looking where you're bloody going cameras, "kill your speed" is going to remain a lead campaign.

So are you suggesting that we don't do the easy things and do the hard things to the exclusion of all else? Again, more upside down logic. No one is suggesting that other things aren't also a problem or that they shouldn't be addressed. But as you say speed limits are easy to enforce, so it's a no-brainer to do that first and then tackle the more complex issues.

The problem I have with that isn't "I want to drive fast" so much as, it's a smokescreen which diverts attention from other issues. The government get their PR as they are seen to be 'doing something' to improve road safety, but the upshot is that nothing ever really changes.

Actually it's worse than that. By emphasising speed so much people start to think that provided they're not speeding then they're driving safely. I'd argue it's actually counter productive to some extent.

other people are suggesting the speed limit is black and white in terms of safety

Where are we suggesting that?

that people who are capable of choosing an appropriate speed for the conditions all by themselves are dangerous loons

People who [B]THINK[/B] they are capable of choosing an appropriate speed are likely to be dangerous loons, yes. Because we are crap at evaluating risk.

When is it ever acceptable for people to make up their own laws based on how they feel? Maybe we should be allowed to beat people up if we think they deserve it?

Oh and as for concentrating on speed at the expense of anything else - really?

Don't drink and drive
Look out for motorbikes
Don't drive on drugs
Keep your distance
Clunk click every trip
Stop look and listen
Don't be an amber gambler
Don't run level crossings

Mobile phone usage has also been criminalised and talked about a lot, but without a catchy slogan.

Currently a very big motorbike awareness campaign (for drivers) running on XFM, has been for ages. No speeding ads though.

You may think you're a good driver because you passed your test but all that confirms is that you have reached the very minimum standard at some point in the dim and distant pass. Do yourself and the rest of us a favour and at the very least, get yourself a refresher lesson.

not a bad idea.

you make some good points, and raise interesting questions, but you can be quite rude about it.

This thread just gets better by the minute...

For what it's worth, Cougar appears to be winning this thread, massively. Is that even allowed as a mod? <posts reported>

speed limits are easy to enforce, so it's a no-brainer to do that first and then tackle the more complex issues

By "no brainer" I presume you mean what you do when you've not thought about it properly.

The limits of a car's capabilities change constantly and dramatically due to changes in the road, so I'll ask you again: how do you know where those limits are?

Er, how do YOU know when there's diesel on the road then?

People who THINK they are capable of choosing an appropriate speed are likely to be dangerous loons, yes

Ah, so the drivers who are just plain ignorant and need speed signs in order to tell them to slow down for bends are safer?

What's so bad about the police making money from law breakers? They don't put the money in their trouser pocket you know, it gets spent on policing.

No it doesn't, it goes back to the treasury I believe.

In any case, do you really want a situation where the police are on commission? I'm not convinced I do.

are you suggesting that we don't do the easy things and do the hard things to the exclusion of all else? Again, more upside down logic.

It's only upside down logic because you've invented an opinion I don't hold in order to attack it.

Ah, so the drivers who are just plain ignorant and need speed signs in order to tell them to slow down for bends are safer?

No.

The safest ones are the ones who are observant and careful, AND drive at relaxed speeds not exceeding the speed limit.

Why are you trying to make out it's either/or? It's poor logic.

Not unless you've got some sort of evidence to back that up. It might arguably be a side effect but I'm not aware that that's why they're in place. If that were the case, we'd have the same limit for all classes of traffic.

Thank you. Yet another example of ignoring common sense and simple logic in order to justify an unjustifiable position. It's blatant common sense that speed limits prevent accidents by enforcing standardised driving behaviour, it's the same principle as everyone driving on the same side of the road. Although to use the warped logic of the anti-limit brigade, this shouldn't be necessary either as long as everyone has done a course in advanced avoidance of oncoming traffic.

Well apparently doing 57 on a road which is safe at 70 makes me a dangerous loon.

dazh - Member

There's no point. These people have convinced themselves that cars are a plaything and the public roads are their race track

Advanced driving is primarily about driving safely, and reduced insurance premiums are proof that it works. I don't treat the roads as a race track, and my 1995 Nissan Micra is not a plaything.
[i]Do stop talking bollocks[/i].

(they pay taxes don't you know!)

I'm fairly sure you're the first person to mention taxes of any kind in this thread.
[i]Do stop talking bollocks[/i].

and they've constructed an entire rationale based on warped logic to justify their actions.

You accused me of using warped logic earlier in the thread, yet you failed to point out why my viewpoint was wrong, and failed to offer an alternative viewpoint of your own.
Are you going to have the balls to do that now?
Or would you rather retract that statement and [i]stop talking bollocks[/i].

Personally I'd have more respect for them if they just came out and admitted that they don't give a sh*t for anyone else and that risking death and injury to others is a price worth paying for their 'fun'. Trouble is they won't admit that cos they still see themselves as 'responsible' road users and they crave acceptance by everyone else, hence the ridiculous justifications.

Advanced drivers are safer drivers. The proof is in the reduced premiums.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Go on a commented drive with an IAM associate, then come back when you are not talking from a position of complete ignorance. 💡 🙂

aracer - Member
Well apparently doing 57 on a road which is safe at 70 makes me a dangerous loon.

How did you conclude it was 'safe' ? (Genuine question...)

Habitually speeding makes you a more dangerous driver than you otherwise would be.

Bottom line - the speed limit is not your decision to make.

aracer - Member

Well apparently doing 57 on a road which is safe at 70 makes me a dangerous loon.

it's the belief that you can interpret speed-limits to suit yourself that leads me to maintain my 'dangerous loon' assessment.

It's blatant common sense that speed limits prevent accidents by enforcing standardised driving behaviour

Ah, it's "blatant common sense"? So you concede that you've made it up, then. Good, we're getting somewhere now.

sbob - Member

"Lifer - Member

Really? I thought it was written on signs beside the road... "

We weren't talking about the speed limit, do keep up (and the speed limit is not always on signs besides the road, their are other methods).

Bless.

[url= http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious ]Facetious[/url]

I have no idea where you people get your energy from 🙂

ahwiles - Member

we cannot let people decide their own speed limits.

It's what every driver does, every time they drive. 😕

sbob - he means [i]legally[/i] not just their own vehicle.

Er, how do YOU know when there's diesel on the road then?

Thank you. Yet another example of ignoring common sense and simple logic in order to justify an unjustifiable position. It's blatant common sense that speed limits prevent accidents by enforcing standardised driving behaviour, it's the same principle as everyone driving on the same side of the road. Although to use the warped logic of the anti-limit brigade, this shouldn't be necessary either as long as everyone has done a course in advanced avoidance of oncoming traffic.

Absolute lunacy - don't try and stretch the truth. All we are saying is that increasing driver training plays the biggest part in road safety, not rules or speed limits.

Just look at India (or many other countries). There are still plenty of rules of the road, plenty of speed limits in place and mostly the speeds are far slower than the UK yet there are many more accidents. Okay so the poor roads and standards of some vehicles play their part, but the main cause for their huge fatality rate is poor driving and poor driver training.

Are you going to have the balls to do that now?

I wasn't aware balls were required for arguing with strangers on an internet forum? In fact isn't that the very purpose of them?

Anyway, at no point have I said that doing an advanced driving course is a bad thing, and I think I may have even said that people who have are indeed better/safer drivers. My point, which was obviously missed, is that even though this is the case, it doesn't qualify them to ignore speed limits or other road laws, and to suggest otherwise is an exercise in self-justification to gain acceptance for otherwise unjustifiable actions.

ahwiles - Member

it's a limit, not a target.

I've already pointed out why this is incorrect. 🙂

xiphon - Member

sbob - he means legally not just their own vehicle.

ie: 'well i thought it was safe' is not a solid legal defence.

Apropos of nothing, this is an interesting read.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/9272478/Speed-cameras-20-years-on.html

It's what every driver does, every time they drive.

No, you decide your speed, but some of us keep to an upper limit for the sake of safety, economy, and predictability.

ahwiles - Member

2000 people are killed every year by motor vehicles, the least we can do is question our national driving behaviour, which clearly sucks.

Although there is always room for improvement, we currently have some of the safest roads in the world.

How did you conclude it was 'safe' ?

No major accidents when it was a 70 limit, no junctions, plenty of width, gentle bends. The fact that further up the road it is still a 70 limit despite being worse on all of those factors (including a fatal accident on one of the bends) - and it seems nobody on here would describe me as a loon for doing 57mph on that bit.

it's the belief that you can interpret speed-limits to suit yourself that leads me to maintain my 'dangerous loon' assessment.

Really? So driving at a speed which is safe makes me a dangerous loon, just because of a sign by the side of the road? We're back to suggesting that those people who don't use their brains at all when driving are safer, aren't we?

ahwiles - Member

well done you.
i'm sure you're an excellent driver, do you mind keeping your exuberance to the track?

🙄
You really haven't a clue what advanced driving is about, have you?
I [i]guarantee[/i] that there will be situations (probably many) where I would be driving more slowly than you, because of my training.
Have a think about that.
Then go and check out your local IAM group.

back to the basics:

it's easy, and safer to obey speed limits - if you're 'safe' at 60, you'll* be safer at 50.

at best: we can save a lot of lives, and make the world a nicer place.

at worst: it's a minor inconvenience.

sbob - Member

You really haven't a clue what advanced driving is about, have you?

i don't know, i was replying to a man calling himself 'rebel' who is suggesting that speeding can be safe, fun, and up to him - because he's an 'advanced' driver.

no need to get personal.

if you're 'safe' at 60, you'll* be safer at 50

Shall I send the bloke with the red flag now, or can you wait?

I guarantee that there will be situations (probably many) where I would be driving more slowly than you, because of my training.

Again, you're completely missing the point of this debate. It's not a campaign against advanced driving. It's a simple rejection of the view, and the ridiculous justifications presented to defend it, that being an advanced driver means you should be able to drive faster than the speed limits.

dazh - Member

As I said a couple of pages back. The fact that you may be a safer/better driver at speed is irrelevant. Speed limits are not just about reducing speed and mitigating the severity of crashes, they are also about [b]creating a standard and predictable environment[/b] on the roads which helps to prevent crashes. Do you accept this point?

That's an extremely dangerous path to go down. Do I need to point out why or would you like to have a little think about it?

aracer - Member

Shall I send the bloke with the red flag now, or can you wait?

i'm very patient 🙂

From Cougar's article

The evidence they reduce accidents seems overwhelming. Since the introduction of speed cameras, deaths on Britain’s roads have halved from 4,229 in 1992 to 1,850 in 2009, the most recent figures. Of course road safety has improved in many other ways, but plenty of individual trials have proved the effectiveness of cameras.

So reduction in speeding due to cameras had an 'overwhelming' effect on deaths on the road.

What was that about speed not being a factor?

If you can be safer at 50, you're not safe at 60 at all.

sbob - Member

That's an extremely dangerous path to go down. Do I need to point out why or would you like to have a little think about it?

indulge me...

Cougar - Moderator

If you can be safer at 50, you're not safe at 60 at all.

quite.

indulge me...

More warped logic, coming right up 🙂

molgrips - Member

Regardless of safety, there's another point.

You can't trust people to make their own judgement about speed. That's why we have limits.

That doesn't remove the need for people to make their own judgement about speed, which they do all the time, without incident. 💡

'without incident'?

or 'about 50 incidents a day - 5 of them fatal'

if you could all play nicely without me, i'm off for some lunch.

ahwiles - Member

hang on, are those numbers per mph reduction? - because that's how i'm reading it - that's massive!

**** me.

On a road with a 20mph speed, by what percentage decrease in accidents will a 20mph decrease in speed achieve, according to those stats?
😉

That doesn't remove the need for people to make their own judgement about speed, which they do all the time, without incident.

Without incident? Really? No car crashes then?

Reducto ad absurdium, once again.

aracer - Member

7% according to the stats.

Less than 4%.

per mph...

Waaaaaaaaaaa! I don't like the stats. Waaaaaaaaaaa.

Rebel12 is you name Matt? Do you like to surf? Are you teh awesum?

Is anyone prepared to admit they just like going fast? Without any of the obfuscation over training and safety.

I like going fast. I keep a lid on it though.

Doesn't that increase your risk of rotational injury?

Well played Cougar, well played indeed.

😀

The limits of a car's capabilities change constantly and dramatically due to changes in the road, so I'll ask you again: how do you know where those limits are?

Can you not see the contradiction within that statement? By your own observation, you cannot know where the limits are, since they are constantly changing.

Maybe it would be safer to try not to drive anywhere near where those limits are likely to be. Unless you really want to, in which case, please take it to a track not the roads my kids might be cycling on.

dazh - Member

Again, you're completely missing the point of this debate. It's not a campaign against advanced driving. It's a simple rejection of the view, and the ridiculous justifications presented to defend it, that being an advanced driver means you should be able to drive faster than the speed limits.

No, you're missing the many posts made that suggest that advanced drivers are a bunch of speed hungry boy racers.
Go back and read the thread, the posts are still there.

dazh - Member

More warped logic, coming right up

Still waiting to hear your unwarped logic.
Waiting...

ahwiles - Member

'without incident'?

or 'about 50 incidents a day - 5 of them fatal'

Yes, without incident.
In your lifetime, the chances are that you will never be involved in a serious accident.
If that wasn't the case then none of us would use the roads.
You don't have to take my word for it, look up KSIs per mile travelled and the proof is there for you to see.

unwarped logic: it's quite a good idea if everyone tries to drive at sort of roughly the same speed. to make lane changing easier, and that sort of thing.

you said that would be 'extremely dangerous'...

Speed limits are not just about reducing speed and mitigating the severity of crashes, they are also about creating a standard and predictable environment on the roads which helps to prevent crashes.

That's an extremely dangerous path to go down. Do I need to point out why or would you like to have a little think about it?