Also - I'm not sure I have actually seen anyone arguing for the right to break speed limits.
I'm sure its not too hard to find out why a limit is say 30mph 40, or 50. Try the local council, they will probably give an answer. My point was, many limits are reasonable and have many reasons why they are there. Just because someone, by habit 'drives to the conditions' (a usual argument) and exceeds said limit, they will on many occasions be in the wrong and driving too fast.
As for arguing for the right to break limits, they're doing just that by saying that its OK to do so.
Of course, this could mean that there are more mobile speed cameras about. And where will the Government get its £100m if all the speed cameras in the UK are switched off?
Increased parking fines.
I am sick and tired of being inconvenienced by selfish morons who think only of themselves when choosing somewhere to park. Then they have the nerve to whinge about receiving a parking ticket.
Of course, this could mean that there are more mobile speed cameras about. And where will the Government get its £100m if all the speed cameras in the UK are switched off?
Fine people who precipitate accidents (i.e. those at fault of causing a collision - including pedestrians). That may make people be more careful when driving or using the road.
Does it make sense that you can get a fine and penalty points for not having a crash - but get off scott free for causing one.
I would quite happily accept 3 points and a fine if I went up another cars arse because I wasnt concentrating on the road ahead.
Why can't you see that 26% (or less) makes speeding one of the biggest if not the biggest contributory factors to road deaths. That percentage is a huge percentage, resulting in hundreds of road deaths a year - a figure that is well worth trying to lower.
But surely it'd be better to reduce the remaining 74% first? Even if you stopped everyone speeding, you would only/possibly reduce the number of accidents by 26%.
Why aren't you concerned about the bigger causes of accidents, of which there are several? You even seem to think speeding may be the biggest contributing factor when even the government clearly prove that it's NOT.
This obsession, one can only call it that, with speeding is actually quite bizarre. And it's obvious it has little to do with concern over road safety, it's about something else - and I don't think I like the mentality behind it, at all.
Now if it was only 1%, you might be on to something (even though that would still be 30-ish deaths a year). But it isn't.
It could be, we don't know. It seems very difficult to obtain the isolated statistic, they always bundle it in with 'excess speed for the road conditions' (which could mean 10mph in some cases). Which is why my hunch is that the percentage of accidents caused primarily due to illegal speeding is very, very low indeed.
But, of course, you won't care about that. You don't really care about saving lives (otherwise you'd concern yourself with the 31% of people who crash solely because they 'didn't look properly').
Actually, I've just noticed something. It would appear that 'illegal speed' is a contributory factor in only around 19%, given that 'excessive speed' is only a contributory factor in just 7.3%.
Although I fear it would be utterly pointless, you really should read this full article:
A DfT strategy paper claimed speed was "a major contributory factor in about a third of all road accidents". The "excessive and inappropriate speed" that helped "to kill about 1,200 people" each year was "far more than any other single contributor to casualties on our roads".
The source given for this claim, to be repeated as a mantra by ministers and officials for years to come, was a report from the government's Transport Research Laboratory, TRL Report 323: "A new system for recording contributory factors in road accidents".
Not many people would have looked at this report, since it was only available for £45. But some who did were amazed. The evidence the report had cited to support its claim that speed was "a major contributory factor in about a third of all road accidents" simply wasn't there. Many other factors were named as contributing to road accidents, from driving without due care and attention to the influence of drink; from poor overtaking to nodding off at the wheel. But the figure given for accidents in which the main causative factor was "excessive speed" was way down the list, at only 7.3 per cent.
I know its a bit old (2001) - but this is an interesting article. Perhaps allowing drivers to judge their own speed may be appropriate in some situations.
The whole point of them being visible is so people slow down. If the camera's is in the right place that's a good thing.
But some people in this thread argue that the sudden slow down then speed up again thing is a cause of increased road accidents... well if so, it's better to avoid this. How? By hiding speed cameras, moving them about, and relying on the "speed camera zone" signs to slow them down gradually for a much longer stretch of road (several or even tens of miles). That should do the trick, similarly to how average speed cameras do it in suitable places.
If you actually look at the figures, illegal speeding could be involved in anything from 0% to 26% - the chances are it's somewhere in the middle.
Illegal speeding is a minority factor that contributes (it's not even the sole cause) of accidents.
But surely it'd be better to reduce the remaining 74% first? Even if you stopped everyone speeding, you would only/possibly reduce the number of accidents by 26%.
Why aren't you concerned about the bigger causes of accidents, of which there are several?
I am so concerned, as I've said more than once - and there are many measures also in place to try and limit road deaths from those other causes. But as nobody is arguing that the many other measures should be removed, there is no need to defend them. They too are likely to be working well, as indicated by the EU road deaths table for 2009 in which the UK comes out best of the lot.
Actually, I've just noticed something. It would appear that 'illegal speed' is a contributory factor in only around 19%, given that 'excessive speed' is only a contributory factor in just 7.3%.
Although I fear it would be utterly pointless, you really should read this full article: You've been 'had', I'm afraid.
As I've said before the exact percentage is neither here nor there so the hysteria about "misleading Government stats" doesn't really affect anything other than what is already known - Government stats should contain a health warning.
The same applies to stats and claims made by special interest authors such as in the Telegraph book review (yes it's just a book review) that you linked (yes, I did read it all and it is singularly unconvincing).
Whether the percentage of causes from excessive speed is 5%, 7.3% or 26% the fact remains that if we can reduce or eliminate this type of cause, we will save lives (but all other road safety measures should be left in place, not replaced by anti-speeding or other campaigns).
And one thing is certain: in almost 100% of serious road collisions the risk of a person's death increases exponentially with the speed of impact - whatever the cause and whoever (if anyone) is to blame. That is the single most compelling argument for finding ways of bringing down the speed of road vehicles in general - other things being equal.
How to do that? With a combination of measures depending on the road and location, including speed limits, chicanes, speed ramps, electronic speed warnings, police patrol observation and radar traps and yes, even speed cameras. But the latter should not be partially crippled by making them visible and their exact locations known - doing that was the biggest single mistake in speed enforcement policy that I can recall. "Variable Location Speed Camera Zone" signs should be the only indication of their (approximate) location.
And one thing is certain: in almost 100% of serious road collisions the risk of a person's death increases exponentially with the speed of impact - whatever the cause and whoever (if anyone) is to blame. That is the single most compelling argument for finding ways of bringing down the speed of road vehicles in general - other things being equal.
The problem with that argument is - at any speed there is a risk of death or serious injury - so the argument "reducing speed will reduce serious injuries and deaths on the road" will always seem a valid one.
The problem is - such an argument as you have put forward is unbounded (i.e. - if you use that argument without setting boundary conditions - then the only conclusion you can reach is that all vehicles should be stationary - thereby completely eliminating the risk).
At what point do we accept that a certain number of casualties are inevitable in order to maintain a useable road network - is 2000 per year acceptabe, 1000, 100?
If you follow the "reduce speed to reduce casualties" argument to its ultimate conclusion - it would result in all road vehicles being effectively banned.
But some people in this thread argue that the sudden slow down then speed up again thing is a cause of increased road accidents... well if so, it's better to avoid this. How? By hiding speed cameras, moving them about, and relying on the "speed camera zone" signs to slow them down gradually for a much longer stretch of road (several or even tens of miles). That should do the trick, similarly to how average speed cameras do it in suitable places.
The cameras I think are useful are the ones well positioned where you might be driving down a 50mph road where the limit drops to 30mph through a village. Those speed tables are also a pretty good idea as you can go over those at about 25mph (if safe of course;)).
I don't like the idea of hiding cameras - it doesn't seem very British to me. But if that's the sort of state versus the individual relationship that appeals to you you're welcome to it.
I am so concerned, as I've said more than once - and there are many measures also in place to try and limit road deaths from those other causes. But as nobody is arguing that the many other measures should be removed, there is no need to defend them. They too are likely to be working well, as indicated by the EU road deaths table for 2009 in which the UK comes out best of the lot.
I've not seen any measures around that periodially check that people are not tired, or periodically check that they're looking at where they're going. Maybe you could let me know where/what they are?
It's quite hard to argue for the removal of things that don't exist.
You also seem unconcerned that the amount of people caught speeding has risen, dramatically, year on year since speed cameras were introduced. Whichever way you choose to look at it (more people are speeding/more cameras illuminate the fact that there are people speeding everywhere), speed cameras do not reduce peoples' speeds or level of speeding. All they do is make money.
I fully agree with you that being hit by a car at 20mph is going to be far less devastating than being hit at 60mph, but our roads are such that it's already virtually impossible to travel in areas where pedestrians are widespread at speeds of more than 20mph to 30mph. Indeed, as I've said before, because I am actually concerned about road safety (rather than Puritanically and maniacally hammering away at imposing upper speed limits) and so would welcome far more 20mph zones on roads where pedestrians are frequent and those roads facilitate driving at 30+mph.
But in return, it needs to be balanced with a sensible and adult increase in the motorway limit to 80mph - this is where most people make up the time in the lengthiest, most important journeys. An extra 60 seconds or so past a school or hospital makes absolute sense, to ensure safety and less harm during accidents, but it makes even more sense when coupled with saving 10 to 20 minutes on longer motorway treks.
Fine people who precipitate accidents (i.e. those at fault of causing a collision - including pedestrians). That may make people be more careful when driving or using the road.
Does it make sense that you can get a fine and penalty points for not having a crash - but get off scott free for causing one.
I would quite happily accept 3 points and a fine if I went up another cars arse because I wasnt concentrating on the road ahead.
Absolutely agree with this.
My sister has had six 'minor' accidents in the past five years. She claims on the insurance, everything's sorted and she just carries on, 'Having a little bump, oops, silly me!'
Anyone involved in an at-fault accident, however minor, whatever the 'reason', should receive 3pts on their licence and a £100 fine.
As you rightly point out, it's currently perfectly possible to drive past 4 cameras in 40mph zones doing 45mph, affect absolutely nobody and nothing, and lose your licence. Whilst at the same time you could knock a pedestrian over, hit two cars in a car park, go into the back of somebody at a roundabout entrance and continue merrily about being a dangerous menace on the roads.
This is my whole point: I am not against speed cameras. I am not pro-speeding. I have never been caught speeding or received a ticket for such (so, no 'chip on shoulder' here).
However, I am pro-road safety, which is why I applauded Swindon Council's move and which is why I hope the rest of the nation follows Swindon and Oxford's lead in doing away with speed cameras and putting resources into actually making our roads safer.
Once we've dealt with the 76-85% of accidents that occur under the speed limit we might then refocus our attention on the minority causes.
Anyone involved in an at-fault accident, however minor, whatever the 'reason', should receive 3pts on their licence and a £100 fine.
I think that's possibly a bit harsh if you skid or something through no real fault of your own, but I wonder why clear cut fault accidents don't automatically count as driving without undue care and attention - which let's face it accounts for the overwhelming majority of accidents.
I think whatever machinery you put in place to attempt to curb speeding will have no effect on the fact that a number of drivers simply don't take their responsibilities behind the wheel seriously enough.
I think that's possibly a bit harsh if you skid or something through no real fault of your own, but I wonder why clear cut fault accidents don't automatically count as driving without undue care and attention - which let's face it accounts for the overwhelming majority of accidents.
Doesn't matter. I've considered road conditions and if it's that dangerous, I've called off my trip. If I'd chosen to drive and skidded, it'd have been my fault.
Although these things are termed 'accidents', I'm convinced that the majority could actually be avoided. Usually just by drivers actually being competent. As I've said before, I am in favour of a much harder driving test and re-tests every 5 years.
To think a person can fluke a short test and then drive, very badly, for the rest of their lives is quite astonishing, given the number of people that poor drivers kill every year.
I think whatever machinery you put in place to attempt to curb speeding will have no effect on the fact that a number of drivers simply don't take their responsibilities behind the wheel seriously enough.
Agreed. If anything, I believe a lot of drivers have a reinforcement of bad driving through speed camera tickets. They get them, see that they got done for 34mph in a 30mph zone and think, 'Pathetic, there was nobody around, nothing happened, I was driving perfectly safely'. It actually makes people worse drivers, very few think, 'Yes, that was deserved, I could have killed someone' because the fact is that they never were going to have killed someone, hence they were driving at that speed.
Fining people who actually have accidents would seem a much better way of making them face up to their shortcomings than fining people who haven't caused any problems whatsoever.
Fining people who actually have accidents would seem a much better way of making them face up to their shortcomings than fining people who haven't caused any problems whatsoever.
If you look at all of the things you can get fines and penalty points for even some things which affect nobody but yourself (e.g. not wearing a seatbelt) - it does seem ludicrous that you can cause your vehicle to have a collision with another vehicle, pedestrian or stationary object - and face no penalty whatsoever.
Implementing such a measure might help combat all of the bad driving caused by people not paying attention. If there was a possibility of points/losing your licence by having an accident - people might pay more attention and take more care when in control of their vehicle.
Fixed penalty fines for pedestrians who misuse the road may also be a good idea (perhaps similar to the jaywalking rule in the US) - it might make them take their responsibilities as detailed in the highway code a bit more seriously too.
At what point do we accept that a certain number of casualties are inevitable in order to maintain a useable road network - is 2000 per year acceptabe, 1000, 100?
If you follow the "reduce speed to reduce casualties" argument to its ultimate conclusion - it would result in all road vehicles being effectively banned.
My argument is for "persuading" drivers to keep to the speed limits in force, whatever they are, by whatever means are possible and practical in each given locality. They would be set as now on a road by road basis by national or local authorities, although there is IMO a strong argument in favour of more widespread 20 mph zones (and even 20 can be too fast on large parts of my local estate).
Yes this would limit the potential reduction in in road deaths but as to what the acceptable figure should be, well that's for Government and society to decide. Zero is of course unnattainable.
I am not against raising motorway speed limits at normally quiet times of day and in good weather conditions but conversely, this implies lowering them at busy times and in poor weather (such as on the M25/M42 at times) but the costs may be too great to do this much more widely.
I don't like the idea of hiding cameras - it doesn't seem very British to me. But if that's the sort of state versus the individual relationship that appeals to you you're welcome to it.
The speed camera zones would be well signposted so the situation would be little different from now, except that most people would stick to the speed limit for longer stretches of road, because they'd know that speed cameras were around, somewhere nearby. However, I'd also prohibit the practice of having "camera zone" signs and no cameras - as is the case on several stretches of road near me.
I've not seen any measures around that periodially check that people are not tired, or periodically check that they're looking at where they're going. Maybe you could let me know where/what they are?
Obviously measures are only introduced if they are possible and practicable, your suggestions above are just silly. There are plenty of examples of non-speed related measures (start the list with breathalyser law).
If you look at all of the things you can get fines and penalty points for even some things which affect nobody but yourself (e.g. not wearing a seatbelt) - it does seem ludicrous that you can cause your vehicle to have a collision with another vehicle, pedestrian or stationary object - and face no penalty whatsoever.
I don't understand this argument at all, surely there are laws designed specifically to deal with such events? Careless/dangerous driving for example, and others? I'm not sure what your point is with this one.
Fixed penalty fines for pedestrians who misuse the road may also be a good idea (perhaps similar to the jaywalking rule in the US) - it might make them take their responsibilities as detailed in the highway code a bit more seriously too.
Maybe... but first, I'd like to have a good look at how well those laws work in the US, or if they work at all. I don't know, but I do know their road deaths figures are a lot higher per head of population than ours so overall they seem to have more problems than us.
I don't understand this argument at all, surely there are laws designed specifically to deal with such events? Careless/dangerous driving for example, and others? I'm not sure what your point is with this one.
They dont take effect in all situations though do they.
I have been involved in three accidents during my 17 years driving - all three times caused by people not paying attention to the road. Did they face any penalty for causing an accident?
Careless/dangerous driving only kicks in when the police decide to prosecute in the event of a serious accident - or if they catch a driver in serious breach of the rules.
For the majority of minor accidents - there will be no penalty - despite the fact that the person who caused it is, in a lot of cases is guilty of careless or dangerous driving.
There are rules in place regarding careless or dangerous driving just as there are for speeding. Why advocate issuing penalty points for people breaking one rule - but then ignore a whole raft of people ignoring another.
They dont take effect in all situations though do they.
I have been involved in three accidents during my 17 years driving - all three times caused by people not paying attention to the road. Did they face any penalty for causing an accident?
Careless/dangerous driving only kicks in when the police decide to prosecute in the event of a serious accident - or if they catch a driver in serious breach of the rules.
For the majority of minor accidents - there will be no penalty - despite the fact that the person who caused it is, in a lot of cases is guilty of careless or dangerous driving.
There are rules in place regarding careless or dangerous driving just as there are for speeding. Why advocate issuing penalty points for people breaking one rule - but then ignore a whole raft of people ignoring another.
I still don't see what we can do about it, or what should and can be done about it. Isn't the problem one of burden of proof (how do you prove the offence?). And perhaps lack of police resources, which might determine the policy - and is going to get worse anyway?
I still don't see what we can do about it, or what should and can be done about it. Isn't the problem one of burden of proof (how do you prove the offence?). And perhaps lack of police resources, which might determine the policy - and is going to get worse anyway?
The DFT statistics show that not paying attention causes far more accidents than speeding does - indeed - according to the link I put in post #189 - "no looking properly" is the primary cause in 37% of all accidents.
Surely you can see the merit in tackling this issue. Not paying attention is a direct root cause of a accidents - not merely a contributing factor to the severity.
As for how we apportion blame - In some cases we already have this information (e.g. insurance claims). But regardless of the actual logistics - having this rule would act as a deterrent and may make drivers think - just like hiding speed cameras would.
For any law the ideal scenario is that nobody gets prosecuted for breaking it.
The DFT statistics show that not paying attention causes far more accidents than speeding does - indeed - according to the link I put in post #189 - "no looking properly" is the primary cause in 37% of all accidents.
Surely you can see the merit in tackling this issue. Not paying attention is a direct root cause of a accidents - not merely a contributing factor to the severity.
As for how we apportion blame - In some cases we already have this information (e.g. insurance claims). But regardless of the actual logistics - having this rule would act as a deterrent and may make drivers think - just like hiding speed cameras would.
Well yes, but proving it is in most cases going to be very difficult - one person's word against another. Proving a speeding camera offence is easy in comparison. I have a good example of inattention and careless driving today (from a relative who's furious!) - luckily one that did not lead to an accident. Driver A is on a large roundabout following another car and driver B pulls out suddenly from an entry road, s
I am a driver and I support the use of speed cameras. However, they would be far more effective if their locations were not disclosed and they were hidden.
With the rush to turn off cameras, I predict a huge furore when someone is killed in an area where a camera used to be operational.
The DFT statistics show that not paying attention causes far more accidents than speeding does - indeed - according to the link I put in post #189 - "no looking properly" is the primary cause in 37% of all accidents.
Surely you can see the merit in tackling this issue. Not paying attention is a direct root cause of a accidents - not merely a contributing factor to the severity.
As for how we apportion blame - In some cases we already have this information (e.g. insurance claims). But regardless of the actual logistics - having this rule would act as a deterrent and may make drivers think - just like hiding speed cameras would.
Well yes, but proving it is in most cases going to be very difficult - one person's word against another. Proving a speeding camera offence is easy in comparison. I have a good example of inattention and careless driving today (from a relative who's furious!) - luckily one that did not lead to a collision.
Driver A is on a large roundabout following another car and driver B pulls out suddenly from an entry road, squeezing between the two cars already on there and forcing driver A to brake sharply, shaking up her children in the car. Both shuddered to a halt, words were exchanged and amazingly, driver B screamed (wrongly) "I had the effing right of way!!!". Unbelieveable - but he actually seemed to believe it! No crash took place - driver B should be prosecuted for careless driving or worse - but how does driver A prove it? All the car driver that A was following knew about it was the hooting of horns and yelling.
Incidents like this occur all the time and sometimes lead to minor collisions - but even they are often not investigated fully by police or Insurance companies due to the cost-versus-proof problem. Unless we have more widespread CC camera surveillance and the means easily to access their footage, I really don't see how we can change things much. Do we really want every junction monitoring by CCTV? For that seems to be the only answer to this infuriating problem.
Proving a speeding offence filmed by a Gatso camera is easy in comparison - even easier than proving something filmed on CCTV - which is why it's done.
With the rush to turn off cameras, I predict a huge furore when someone is killed in an area where a camera used to be operational.
Yep - undoubtedly this will be the case.
Its also the reason why speed limit increases will never be introduced - or inappropriate speed limit reductions will never be reversed.
The first person killed on a road where the limits have been increased would be front page news and the politician/councilor who signed it off would be crucified. It would be like all the wintervals come at once for the tabloids.
Well yes, but proving it is in most cases going to be very difficult - one person's word against another. Proving a speeding camera offence is easy in comparison. I have a good example of inattention and careless driving today (from a relative who's furious!) - luckily one that did not lead to a collision.
Driver A is on a large roundabout following another car and driver B pulls out suddenly from an entry road, squeezing between the two cars already on there and forcing driver A to brake sharply, shaking up her children in the car. Both shuddered to a halt, words were exchanged and amazingly, driver B screamed (wrongly) "I had the effing right of way!!!". Unbelieveable - but he actually seemed to believe it! No crash took place - driver B should be prosecuted for careless driving or worse - but how does driver A prove it? All the car driver that A was following knew about it was the hooting of horns and yelling.
Incidents like this occur all the time and sometimes lead to minor collisions - but even they are often not investigated fully by police or Insurance companies due to the cost-versus-proof problem. Unless we have more widespread CC camera surveillance and the means easily to access their footage, I really don't see how we can change things much. Do we really want every junction monitoring by CCTV? For that seems to be the only answer to this infuriating problem.
Proving a speeding offence filmed by a Gatso camera is easy in comparison - even easier than proving something filmed on CCTV - which is why it's done.
I do take on board what you are saying - but just because someting is difficult - doesnt mean it shouldnt be tackled.
Given that carelessness is the largest contributer to accidents on our roads - it receives far less attention than it deserves from a road safety point of view.
If we have an effective method of catching speeding motorists - why concentrate so much effort on the same subject in TV ad campains etc. Surely - highlighting the importance of proper observation would be a better use of resource.
Perhaps informative ads aimed at pedestrians on how to use the roads would also help - you know - like the old green cross code ads.
Also as I pointed out - merely having these fines/penalties in place may act as a deterent. The threat of prosecution for even a minor accident may make people sit up and take a bit more care.
Driver A is on a large roundabout following another car and driver B pulls out suddenly from an entry road, squeezing between the two cars already on there and forcing driver A to brake sharply, shaking up her children in the car. Both shuddered to a halt, words were exchanged and amazingly, driver B screamed (wrongly) "I had the effing right of way!!!". Unbelieveable - but he actually seemed to believe it! No crash took place - driver B should be prosecuted for careless driving or worse - but how does driver A prove it? All the car driver that A was following knew about it was the hooting of horns and yelling.
Incidents like this occur all the time and sometimes lead to minor collisions - but even they are often not investigated fully by police or Insurance companies due to the cost-versus-proof problem. Unless we have more widespread CC camera surveillance and the means easily to access their footage, I really don't see how we can change things much. Do we really want every junction monitoring by CCTV? For that seems to be the only answer to this infuriating problem.
Proving a speeding offence filmed by a Gatso camera is easy in comparison - even easier than proving something filmed on CCTV - which is why it's done.
I think dash cams will solve many problems with proof, not all but quite a few. Maybe if insurance companies provided a discount if you had one it would be an incentive. No clear market leader in the UK to provide one though...yet.
As for CCTV and proof, I think one of the reasons Gatso's are being 'retired' is that they are poor value for money, a one trick pony. Technology has moved on a bit, cameras are quite clever, cheaper and getting smaller. They should be able to recognise a variety of faults in the future (which is what people have been arguing for?).
Personally, I think people power and personal evidence will be the most effective, casting a wider net.
Comments
I'm sure its not too hard to find out why a limit is say 30mph 40, or 50. Try the local council, they will probably give an answer. My point was, many limits are reasonable and have many reasons why they are there. Just because someone, by habit 'drives to the conditions' (a usual argument) and exceeds said limit, they will on many occasions be in the wrong and driving too fast.
As for arguing for the right to break limits, they're doing just that by saying that its OK to do so.
Increased parking fines.
I am sick and tired of being inconvenienced by selfish morons who think only of themselves when choosing somewhere to park. Then they have the nerve to whinge about receiving a parking ticket.
Fine people who precipitate accidents (i.e. those at fault of causing a collision - including pedestrians). That may make people be more careful when driving or using the road.
Does it make sense that you can get a fine and penalty points for not having a crash - but get off scott free for causing one.
I would quite happily accept 3 points and a fine if I went up another cars arse because I wasnt concentrating on the road ahead.
Not the case.
If you actually look at the figures, illegal speeding could be involved in anything from 0% to 26% - the chances are it's somewhere in the middle.
Illegal speeding is a minority factor that contributes (it's not even the sole cause) of accidents.
But surely it'd be better to reduce the remaining 74% first? Even if you stopped everyone speeding, you would only/possibly reduce the number of accidents by 26%.
Why aren't you concerned about the bigger causes of accidents, of which there are several? You even seem to think speeding may be the biggest contributing factor when even the government clearly prove that it's NOT.
This obsession, one can only call it that, with speeding is actually quite bizarre. And it's obvious it has little to do with concern over road safety, it's about something else - and I don't think I like the mentality behind it, at all.
It could be, we don't know. It seems very difficult to obtain the isolated statistic, they always bundle it in with 'excess speed for the road conditions' (which could mean 10mph in some cases). Which is why my hunch is that the percentage of accidents caused primarily due to illegal speeding is very, very low indeed.
But, of course, you won't care about that. You don't really care about saving lives (otherwise you'd concern yourself with the 31% of people who crash solely because they 'didn't look properly').
Actually, I've just noticed something. It would appear that 'illegal speed' is a contributory factor in only around 19%, given that 'excessive speed' is only a contributory factor in just 7.3%.
Although I fear it would be utterly pointless, you really should read this full article:
You've been 'had', I'm afraid.
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/onethirdemail.html
http://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox
But some people in this thread argue that the sudden slow down then speed up again thing is a cause of increased road accidents... well if so, it's better to avoid this. How? By hiding speed cameras, moving them about, and relying on the "speed camera zone" signs to slow them down gradually for a much longer stretch of road (several or even tens of miles). That should do the trick, similarly to how average speed cameras do it in suitable places.
I am so concerned, as I've said more than once - and there are many measures also in place to try and limit road deaths from those other causes. But as nobody is arguing that the many other measures should be removed, there is no need to defend them. They too are likely to be working well, as indicated by the EU road deaths table for 2009 in which the UK comes out best of the lot.
As I've said before the exact percentage is neither here nor there so the hysteria about "misleading Government stats" doesn't really affect anything other than what is already known - Government stats should contain a health warning.
The same applies to stats and claims made by special interest authors such as in the Telegraph book review (yes it's just a book review) that you linked (yes, I did read it all and it is singularly unconvincing).
Whether the percentage of causes from excessive speed is 5%, 7.3% or 26% the fact remains that if we can reduce or eliminate this type of cause, we will save lives (but all other road safety measures should be left in place, not replaced by anti-speeding or other campaigns).
And one thing is certain: in almost 100% of serious road collisions the risk of a person's death increases exponentially with the speed of impact - whatever the cause and whoever (if anyone) is to blame. That is the single most compelling argument for finding ways of bringing down the speed of road vehicles in general - other things being equal.
How to do that? With a combination of measures depending on the road and location, including speed limits, chicanes, speed ramps, electronic speed warnings, police patrol observation and radar traps and yes, even speed cameras. But the latter should not be partially crippled by making them visible and their exact locations known - doing that was the biggest single mistake in speed enforcement policy that I can recall. "Variable Location Speed Camera Zone" signs should be the only indication of their (approximate) location.
The problem with that argument is - at any speed there is a risk of death or serious injury - so the argument "reducing speed will reduce serious injuries and deaths on the road" will always seem a valid one.
The problem is - such an argument as you have put forward is unbounded (i.e. - if you use that argument without setting boundary conditions - then the only conclusion you can reach is that all vehicles should be stationary - thereby completely eliminating the risk).
At what point do we accept that a certain number of casualties are inevitable in order to maintain a useable road network - is 2000 per year acceptabe, 1000, 100?
If you follow the "reduce speed to reduce casualties" argument to its ultimate conclusion - it would result in all road vehicles being effectively banned.
The cameras I think are useful are the ones well positioned where you might be driving down a 50mph road where the limit drops to 30mph through a village. Those speed tables are also a pretty good idea as you can go over those at about 25mph (if safe of course;)).
I don't like the idea of hiding cameras - it doesn't seem very British to me. But if that's the sort of state versus the individual relationship that appeals to you you're welcome to it.
I've not seen any measures around that periodially check that people are not tired, or periodically check that they're looking at where they're going. Maybe you could let me know where/what they are?
It's quite hard to argue for the removal of things that don't exist.
You also seem unconcerned that the amount of people caught speeding has risen, dramatically, year on year since speed cameras were introduced. Whichever way you choose to look at it (more people are speeding/more cameras illuminate the fact that there are people speeding everywhere), speed cameras do not reduce peoples' speeds or level of speeding. All they do is make money.
I fully agree with you that being hit by a car at 20mph is going to be far less devastating than being hit at 60mph, but our roads are such that it's already virtually impossible to travel in areas where pedestrians are widespread at speeds of more than 20mph to 30mph. Indeed, as I've said before, because I am actually concerned about road safety (rather than Puritanically and maniacally hammering away at imposing upper speed limits) and so would welcome far more 20mph zones on roads where pedestrians are frequent and those roads facilitate driving at 30+mph.
But in return, it needs to be balanced with a sensible and adult increase in the motorway limit to 80mph - this is where most people make up the time in the lengthiest, most important journeys. An extra 60 seconds or so past a school or hospital makes absolute sense, to ensure safety and less harm during accidents, but it makes even more sense when coupled with saving 10 to 20 minutes on longer motorway treks.
Absolutely agree with this.
My sister has had six 'minor' accidents in the past five years. She claims on the insurance, everything's sorted and she just carries on, 'Having a little bump, oops, silly me!'
Anyone involved in an at-fault accident, however minor, whatever the 'reason', should receive 3pts on their licence and a £100 fine.
As you rightly point out, it's currently perfectly possible to drive past 4 cameras in 40mph zones doing 45mph, affect absolutely nobody and nothing, and lose your licence. Whilst at the same time you could knock a pedestrian over, hit two cars in a car park, go into the back of somebody at a roundabout entrance and continue merrily about being a dangerous menace on the roads.
This is my whole point: I am not against speed cameras. I am not pro-speeding. I have never been caught speeding or received a ticket for such (so, no 'chip on shoulder' here).
However, I am pro-road safety, which is why I applauded Swindon Council's move and which is why I hope the rest of the nation follows Swindon and Oxford's lead in doing away with speed cameras and putting resources into actually making our roads safer.
Once we've dealt with the 76-85% of accidents that occur under the speed limit we might then refocus our attention on the minority causes.
I think that's possibly a bit harsh if you skid or something through no real fault of your own, but I wonder why clear cut fault accidents don't automatically count as driving without undue care and attention - which let's face it accounts for the overwhelming majority of accidents.
I think whatever machinery you put in place to attempt to curb speeding will have no effect on the fact that a number of drivers simply don't take their responsibilities behind the wheel seriously enough.
Doesn't matter. I've considered road conditions and if it's that dangerous, I've called off my trip. If I'd chosen to drive and skidded, it'd have been my fault.
Although these things are termed 'accidents', I'm convinced that the majority could actually be avoided. Usually just by drivers actually being competent. As I've said before, I am in favour of a much harder driving test and re-tests every 5 years.
To think a person can fluke a short test and then drive, very badly, for the rest of their lives is quite astonishing, given the number of people that poor drivers kill every year.
Agreed. If anything, I believe a lot of drivers have a reinforcement of bad driving through speed camera tickets. They get them, see that they got done for 34mph in a 30mph zone and think, 'Pathetic, there was nobody around, nothing happened, I was driving perfectly safely'. It actually makes people worse drivers, very few think, 'Yes, that was deserved, I could have killed someone' because the fact is that they never were going to have killed someone, hence they were driving at that speed.
Fining people who actually have accidents would seem a much better way of making them face up to their shortcomings than fining people who haven't caused any problems whatsoever.
If you look at all of the things you can get fines and penalty points for even some things which affect nobody but yourself (e.g. not wearing a seatbelt) - it does seem ludicrous that you can cause your vehicle to have a collision with another vehicle, pedestrian or stationary object - and face no penalty whatsoever.
Implementing such a measure might help combat all of the bad driving caused by people not paying attention. If there was a possibility of points/losing your licence by having an accident - people might pay more attention and take more care when in control of their vehicle.
Fixed penalty fines for pedestrians who misuse the road may also be a good idea (perhaps similar to the jaywalking rule in the US) - it might make them take their responsibilities as detailed in the highway code a bit more seriously too.
Yes this would limit the potential reduction in in road deaths but as to what the acceptable figure should be, well that's for Government and society to decide. Zero is of course unnattainable.
I am not against raising motorway speed limits at normally quiet times of day and in good weather conditions but conversely, this implies lowering them at busy times and in poor weather (such as on the M25/M42 at times) but the costs may be too great to do this much more widely. The speed camera zones would be well signposted so the situation would be little different from now, except that most people would stick to the speed limit for longer stretches of road, because they'd know that speed cameras were around, somewhere nearby. However, I'd also prohibit the practice of having "camera zone" signs and no cameras - as is the case on several stretches of road near me. Obviously measures are only introduced if they are possible and practicable, your suggestions above are just silly. There are plenty of examples of non-speed related measures (start the list with breathalyser law). I don't understand this argument at all, surely there are laws designed specifically to deal with such events? Careless/dangerous driving for example, and others? I'm not sure what your point is with this one.
Maybe... but first, I'd like to have a good look at how well those laws work in the US, or if they work at all. I don't know, but I do know their road deaths figures are a lot higher per head of population than ours so overall they seem to have more problems than us.
They dont take effect in all situations though do they.
I have been involved in three accidents during my 17 years driving - all three times caused by people not paying attention to the road. Did they face any penalty for causing an accident?
Careless/dangerous driving only kicks in when the police decide to prosecute in the event of a serious accident - or if they catch a driver in serious breach of the rules.
For the majority of minor accidents - there will be no penalty - despite the fact that the person who caused it is, in a lot of cases is guilty of careless or dangerous driving.
There are rules in place regarding careless or dangerous driving just as there are for speeding. Why advocate issuing penalty points for people breaking one rule - but then ignore a whole raft of people ignoring another.
I still don't see what we can do about it, or what should and can be done about it. Isn't the problem one of burden of proof (how do you prove the offence?). And perhaps lack of police resources, which might determine the policy - and is going to get worse anyway?
The DFT statistics show that not paying attention causes far more accidents than speeding does - indeed - according to the link I put in post #189 - "no looking properly" is the primary cause in 37% of all accidents.
Surely you can see the merit in tackling this issue. Not paying attention is a direct root cause of a accidents - not merely a contributing factor to the severity.
As for how we apportion blame - In some cases we already have this information (e.g. insurance claims). But regardless of the actual logistics - having this rule would act as a deterrent and may make drivers think - just like hiding speed cameras would.
For any law the ideal scenario is that nobody gets prosecuted for breaking it.
Well yes, but proving it is in most cases going to be very difficult - one person's word against another. Proving a speeding camera offence is easy in comparison. I have a good example of inattention and careless driving today (from a relative who's furious!) - luckily one that did not lead to an accident. Driver A is on a large roundabout following another car and driver B pulls out suddenly from an entry road, s
With the rush to turn off cameras, I predict a huge furore when someone is killed in an area where a camera used to be operational.
Well yes, but proving it is in most cases going to be very difficult - one person's word against another. Proving a speeding camera offence is easy in comparison. I have a good example of inattention and careless driving today (from a relative who's furious!) - luckily one that did not lead to a collision.
Driver A is on a large roundabout following another car and driver B pulls out suddenly from an entry road, squeezing between the two cars already on there and forcing driver A to brake sharply, shaking up her children in the car. Both shuddered to a halt, words were exchanged and amazingly, driver B screamed (wrongly) "I had the effing right of way!!!". Unbelieveable - but he actually seemed to believe it! No crash took place - driver B should be prosecuted for careless driving or worse - but how does driver A prove it? All the car driver that A was following knew about it was the hooting of horns and yelling.
Incidents like this occur all the time and sometimes lead to minor collisions - but even they are often not investigated fully by police or Insurance companies due to the cost-versus-proof problem. Unless we have more widespread CC camera surveillance and the means easily to access their footage, I really don't see how we can change things much. Do we really want every junction monitoring by CCTV? For that seems to be the only answer to this infuriating problem.
Proving a speeding offence filmed by a Gatso camera is easy in comparison - even easier than proving something filmed on CCTV - which is why it's done.
Yep - undoubtedly this will be the case.
Its also the reason why speed limit increases will never be introduced - or inappropriate speed limit reductions will never be reversed.
The first person killed on a road where the limits have been increased would be front page news and the politician/councilor who signed it off would be crucified. It would be like all the wintervals come at once for the tabloids.
I do take on board what you are saying - but just because someting is difficult - doesnt mean it shouldnt be tackled.
Given that carelessness is the largest contributer to accidents on our roads - it receives far less attention than it deserves from a road safety point of view.
If we have an effective method of catching speeding motorists - why concentrate so much effort on the same subject in TV ad campains etc. Surely - highlighting the importance of proper observation would be a better use of resource.
Perhaps informative ads aimed at pedestrians on how to use the roads would also help - you know - like the old green cross code ads.
Also as I pointed out - merely having these fines/penalties in place may act as a deterent. The threat of prosecution for even a minor accident may make people sit up and take a bit more care.
I think dash cams will solve many problems with proof, not all but quite a few. Maybe if insurance companies provided a discount if you had one it would be an incentive. No clear market leader in the UK to provide one though...yet.
As for CCTV and proof, I think one of the reasons Gatso's are being 'retired' is that they are poor value for money, a one trick pony. Technology has moved on a bit, cameras are quite clever, cheaper and getting smaller. They should be able to recognise a variety of faults in the future (which is what people have been arguing for?).
Personally, I think people power and personal evidence will be the most effective, casting a wider net.