Stealth tax

[downfader]

With motorways you have to remember there is a lot of control and management of traffic through barriers, slip roads, three wide lanes all heading in the same direction...

Theres little chance of hitting an oncoming vehicle.

You do have to consider though - if you increase the speed limit on motorways you also increase stopping distances, so in effect you'd have to have less traffic to be safe at higher speeds. Having been a passenger in others cars I've seen a lot of tailgaiting on motorways.

Speeding becomes more unsafe where traffic has a chance to meet from opposite directions and there are many junctions. Slip roads glide traffic in, junctions do not.

 

[automatic_jon]

I have been done for speeding twice, both times doing a little under 70 on a 50 dual carriageway. Not knowing the road and trying desperately not to get lost I wasn't paying sufficient attention to the signs saying the limit had come down. It was a fair cop as ignorance is no defence. I no longer speed, I pay more attention and most importantly I no longer go further north than Kings Lynn.

I can understand people who object to speed cameras as an automated money making machine, the perception that there's no human input and the whole process is impersonal and lacks justice. No one's being tried by a jury of their peers, computer says no.

Ooh, that's a point, those points should come off my licence soon, if I can find it.

 

[GrasB]

My complaint about speed limit enforcement - Inadequate with inadequate penalties.

Increase the number of cameras - at least 10 times as many.
Increase the penalties - to at least the present drink drive standard.

Wrong answer imho, if you're talking about static cameras. The problem is most speed cameras are static, fixed, immovable objects that people with any common sense can notice & avoid. Now what you do is reduce the number of static cameras & have those that are visible on proven black spots where speeding in collisions is a real problem. Then you get sneaky, you then have policemen randomly choosing locations, preferably so they're not in easy sight catching people & issuing increased fines. Yes the £60 fine is a joke, maybe we go for £500 or £1000 but at present the standard fine is ridiculously low.

 

[thomas]

Wrong answer imho, if you're talking about static cameras. The problem is most speed cameras are static, fixed, immovable objects that people with any common sense can notice & avoid. Now what you do is reduce the number of static cameras & have those that are visible on proven black spots where speeding in collisions is a real problem. Then you get sneaky, you then have people randomly choosing locations, preferably so they're not in easy sight catching people & issuing increased fines. Yes the £60 fine is a joke, maybe we go for £500 or £1000 but at present the standard fine is ridiculously low.

Static cameras are fine. Just make them average speed cameras. No point trying to speed through those.

They always seem to work well on motorways in limiting traffic speeds.

You do have to consider though - if you increase the speed limit on motorways you also increase stopping distances, so in effect you'd have to have less traffic to be safe at higher speeds. Having been a passenger in others cars I've seen a lot of tailgaiting on motorways.

The actual stopping distance part (rather than the thinking distance), at a higher speed with modern cars, will be lower than with much older cars stopping from 70mph.

Tailgating will be a problem on motorways, no matter the speed limit. if we could drive at 1000mph people would still tailgate

 

[ufkacbln]

Also, with speeding there are times where to be honest, it doesn't really matter. In built up areas, yes, you should stick to the speed limit...but on a quiet motorway does doing 80mph rather than 70mph really make any difference to road safety? Raising the motorway speed limit to 80mph is the only policy that the BNP have that seems to make sense (though, anyone to vote for them for that issue needs their head testing).

It was the inability of the "average motorist" to control vehicles on Motorways that led to speed limits on them in the first place. The same standard of drivers are out there today and would be equally unable to judge.

One problem with speed cameras, or very strict speed enforcement is that it makes people spend less time focused on the road. I know this is, 'one of those excuses', but if I relied on a car and didn't have lots of money, what am I going to do - pay loads of attention to my speedo and less on what's further up the road, or not? If I actually hit someone by accident I'd probably be more likely to keep my licence than if I got caught speeding a few times.

Same applies to women, short skirts....

Of course then there was the case recently where the ABD wanted Police vehicles removed as they were causing a distraction by enforcing the law!
Drivers were spending time looking for Police vehicles rather than the road!

Then of course there are all those other awfully dangerous things like scenery.

Control of speed is not down to the speedometer entirely and if you cannot judge by engine noise, gear, observing your surroundings then....... bt of course if you are unable to combine these tasks and miss 3 or 4 warning signs and a massive great yellow box that you already know is there - should they be driving at all with such inadequate observation skills?

Personally, I think there are more dangerous issues on the road. Such as mobile phone use....yet when people are on their phones (like drink drivers) they are probably driving slower to account for it....therefore speed cameras won't get them, and the Police don't care.

Another red herring........ the present speeding systems and surveillance can and do collar tail gaters, mobile phones, dodgy overtakes and a host of other offences.

The problem really is excessive speed. 65 in a 60 won't generally be a problem...but taking that sharp corner in a 30, at 30 will be a problem. Even doing 30mph in a 30mph past a school could be excessive, but speed cameras don't account for this.

Which is very naive and another reason why these systems are in place. Most speeding drivers sped habitually the concept that these drivers would magically drive safely if there was no enforcement is laughable. The drivers who speed in the 60mph zone will also be the ones driving too fast in the 30.

It is called "risk taking behaviour" and there is a strong evidential link between speeding and risk taking.[/quote]

I'm not saying I condone speeding, as long as people aren't driving at an excessive speed for the conditions. When I used to drive (I will drive again!) I used to try to stick to most speed limits, but there were some roads where I wasn't worried about a couple extra MPH here or there. However, unlike some people at least I realise there are times that even though I can do the speed limit, it doesn't mean I should.

As the IAM unequivocally states :

Excessive or inappropriate speed, regardless of any limit, is dangerous and unacceptable. Speed limits are exactly that – limits, not targets, and advanced drivers know when they need to impose their own speed restraints (below the statutory limits) depending on the circumstances.

OFcourse the answer is in technology - speed limiters triggered according to conditions and local environment

 

[Arch]

The actual stopping distance part (rather than the thinking distance), at a higher speed with modern cars, will be lower than with much older cars stopping from 70mph.

And how many of these 'much older cars' are currently on the road? Not many - better brakes and stuff like ABS have been around for yonks. That's a non point. If you up the limit, there won't suddenly and automatically be better cars on the road to compensate.

I agree that speed isn't everything, we need much much better and more responsible drivers on the road. But if you must allow crap drivers (and it seems we must in this country or risk revolution and national collapse), I'd rather they were limited to lower speeds....

 

[hackbike 666]

Speed is a lot if you lose control of the bugger in your testosterone filled enviroment.

I learnt a long time ago after making a mistake that defensive driving is the best way to do it.

 

[GrasB]

thomas, you'd then have to cover every piece of road. Also average speed cameras can let people do well over the speed limit - In 20mph limit there's a 5 mile stretch of road covered by average speed cameras, the minimum time you can be between these cameras is 15min. Half way between these cameras there's a shop. You enter the camera control area at 30mph, stop off to get a paper & your lunch & then drive out of the speed camera control area at 30mph. Now it takes 5min to get to the shop & another 5min to get to the second camera so it takes 10 min of driving time to cover those 5 miles. However stopping off at the shop means parking up, going into the shop paying etc. this takes 7min so the cameras register 17min to do 5 mile which is 17.6mph, this below the speed limit but the driver was doing 30 while traveling.

OFcourse the answer is in technology - speed limiters triggered according to conditions and local environment

Shelve that, just get fully automated cars that need no driver input once their destination is set.

 

[thomas]

I don't think that ideas of a £1000 fine and similar bans to drink driving is always necessary. Certainly, give good long bans and high fines to those who speed excessively, but I don't feel the same is necessary for lower infractions (or mistakes).

If someone (or myself) got done for speeding I can understand being annoyed, but do think it's silly if they were to start blaming everything else.

I don't see speeding fines as a 'motorist tax'...it's easy to know what the speed limit is, it's easy to control a car so it follows a speed limit. Do those things and it's not a problem.

And how many of these 'much older cars' are currently on the road? Not many - better brakes and stuff like ABS have been around for yonks. That's a non point. If you up the limit, there won't suddenly and automatically be better cars on the road to compensate.

I agree that speed isn't everything, we need much much better and more responsible drivers on the road. But if you must allow crap drivers (and it seems we must in this country or risk revolution and national collapse), I'd rather they were limited to lower speeds....

I'm not against lower speed limits, in places. I do think that some 20mph zones are good ideas and that it is sensible to follow them. There's one near me, it's where there are a lot of shop, lot of foot traffic and a lot of people who could jump of the pavement into the road. I think it'd be a fantastic bit to try a shared space on, but that's just me . I don't like the idea of single carriageway nation speed limit being dropped to 50mph.

I do agree, we have a lot of crap drivers and we do need a better method of testing new drivers and potentially, making sure people are up to scratch later on. However, if someone does 80mph rather than 70mph on a motorway I don't feel it makes a whole lot of difference. An accident at either speed won't end that nicely.

thomas, you'd then have to cover every piece of road. Also average speed cameras can let people do well over the speed limit - In 20mph limit there's a 5 mile stretch of road covered by average speed cameras, the minimum time you can be between these cameras is 15min. Half way between these cameras there's a shop. You enter the camera control area at 30mph, stop off to get a paper & your lunch & then drive out of the speed camera control area at 30mph. Now it takes 5min to get to the shop & another 5min to get to the second camera so it takes 10 min of driving time to cover those 5 miles. However stopping off at the shop means parking up, going into the shop paying etc. this takes 7min so the cameras register 17min to do 5 mile which is 17.6mph, this below the speed limit but the driver was doing 30 while traveling.

You wouldn't have to cover every road, but they may have to be strategically placed. You'd place them in 'accident hot spots', or places (such as 20mph zones, outside schools, etc) where speeding is least acceptable. Normal, static, or movable (police in cars) do not cover every stretch of every road.

As for being able to stop. Certainly, on a motorway, I could do 100mph for the first half through average speed cameras, then reduce my speed accordingly for the second part so I don't get done.

As for your situation, I'm not saying average speed cameras would work everywhere, but a lot of people won't be stopping at the shops and therefore they will need to stick to the speed limit, which in turn limits the other drivers speeds. So if you stop for a sarny and want to speed, then I come along....and I was clever enough to make a packed lunch, then you'll be stuck behind me doing the speed limit .

Anyway, static speed cameras allow for the same thing as your problem with average ones. 'When I see a speed camera I drop my speed....after them I speed back up'. Having effected the average speed of the road very little.

 

[TheDoctor]

The actual stopping distance part (rather than the thinking distance), at a higher speed with modern cars, will be lower than with much older cars stopping from 70mph.

Not sure that it will, TBH. My old Metro with drum brakes had enough braking power to lock the wheels. Plus, cars are much heavier than they used to be, so there's much more momentum to dissipate.
You're still relying on an small patch of rubber gripping the road.

 

[PBancroft]

However, if someone does 80mph rather than 70mph on a motorway I don't feel it makes a whole lot of difference. An accident at either speed won't end that nicely.

Except that you are more likely to be involved in a crash the faster you are going. You have much less time to react, and require much greater stopping times and distances.

 

[ufkacbln]

I do agree, we have a lot of crap drivers and we do need a better method of testing new drivers and potentially, making sure people are up to scratch later on. However, if someone does 80mph rather than 70mph on a motorway I don't feel it makes a whole lot of difference. An accident at either speed won't end that nicely.



You wouldn't have to cover every road, but they may have to be strategically placed. You'd place them in 'accident hot spots', or places (such as 20mph zones, outside schools, etc) where speeding is least acceptable. Normal, static, or movable (police in cars) do not cover every stretch of every road.

Police cars are dangerous (ABD) as Police enforcing the law mean drivers have to look out for them and this means they are not paying attention to the road!


The rest is down to the drivers. The ones who slow down and then speed up are simply unwilling to drive to an accepted standard and are the dangerous ones.

The evidence point to high risk activities such as speding, dangerous overtaking, tail gating and aggressive drivimg as being comonly linked to "Risk taking behaviour" and these drivers need to be identified.

Firstly we should be taking speding and the other offences as a possible signal, or red flag that the driver is a risk taker and then address this as an issue.

Identification and education of such drivers has been used in fleets for some time and a program of psychometric testing and training by Arriva halved the accident rates that the company was experiencing.

The greatest advantage is that you can also spot these traits before the driver gets behind the wheel, and could easily be incorporated into the test structure.

However the difficult point here is that you will (sooner rather than later) come across the drivers who are simply unsuitableto drive and should not be allowed on the roads, but at least we can get them off quickly.

 

[ufkacbln]

Not sure that it will, TBH. My old Metro with drum brakes had enough braking power to lock the wheels. Plus, cars are much heavier than they used to be, so there's much more momentum to dissipate.
You're still relying on an small patch of rubber gripping the road.

... and older cars did not need to have anti skid surfaces at every junction.

You used to be able to stop aMorris Minor at a junction, yet now it is not possible to stop a modern car atthe same junction with improved braking, better tyres and assistance such as ABS?

Couldn't be the fact that it is the drivers that are the problem not the vehicles?

No matter how efficient you make a vehicle's brakes and tyres there will always be thise who will drive outside the performance envelope.

Again lets spot these drivers and remove them

 

[GrasB]

You wouldn't have to cover every road, but they may have to be strategically placed. You'd place them in 'accident hot spots', or places (such as 20mph zones, outside schools, etc) where speeding is least acceptable. Normal, static, or movable (police in cars) do not cover every stretch of every road.

...

So if you stop for a sarny and want to speed, then I come along....and I was clever enough to make a packed lunch, then you'll be stuck behind me doing the speed limit .

The difference between static & a relatively large number of mobile speed traps is the latter doesn't have to cover everywhere to be effective everywhere! If there's a threat that there's a policeman with a speed gun in a concealed location you're getting to the situation where to have to watch your speed everywhere not just where you know there's a camera.

The rolling road block thing doesn't really work for me as I see people doing 20mph (in a 20) being overtaken most times I go to the shops!

 

[MacB]

I'm with the limiting technology idea here, remove the option to exceed speed limits, then we can focus resources on better driving and appropriate speed.