The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)
Comments
-
Sure but people are people. Unless you can come up with some practical way you can enforce 'paying more attention' or 'thinking ahead', something measurable that can be defined is all we've got. I mean I can't imagine you'd be up for annual re-tests or AI powered driving with due care cameras (if such a thing were invented).Stevo_666 said:
It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?kingstongraham said:
Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.Stevo_666 said:
See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.
Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.
In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.
Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?
Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.
I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Speed limits are for your own safety Stevo.
Makes you less likely to crash which is good for both you and whoever else might be involved.0 -
What about new EV's in term of acceleration. Even MG (Chinese brand now) make a thirty five grand car which will do 0-60 in 3.8 second!
That has to be an issue in terms of pedestrians and other vehicles reacting to it.0 -
Here you go, AI cameras under trial. Stevo will presumably be celebrating these fines and definitely not bemoaning the police making money out of drivers.rjsterry said:
Sure but people are people. Unless you can come up with some practical way you can enforce 'paying more attention' or 'thinking ahead', something measurable that can be defined is all we've got. I mean I can't imagine you'd be up for annual re-tests or AI powered driving with due care cameras (if such a thing were invented).Stevo_666 said:
It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?kingstongraham said:
Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.Stevo_666 said:
See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.
Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.
In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.
Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?
Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.
I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/uks-first-free-standing-ai-road-safety-camera/0 -
Sounds good.Pross said:
Here you go, AI cameras under trial. Stevo will presumably be celebrating these fines and definitely not bemoaning the police making money out of drivers.rjsterry said:
Sure but people are people. Unless you can come up with some practical way you can enforce 'paying more attention' or 'thinking ahead', something measurable that can be defined is all we've got. I mean I can't imagine you'd be up for annual re-tests or AI powered driving with due care cameras (if such a thing were invented).Stevo_666 said:
It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?kingstongraham said:
Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.Stevo_666 said:
See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.
Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.
In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.
Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?
Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.
I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/uks-first-free-standing-ai-road-safety-camera/1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
So why the disproprortionate focus on speed enforcement compared to other relevant aspects?kingstongraham said:
Yes. Also being an important part of that sentence.Stevo_666 said:
It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?kingstongraham said:
Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.Stevo_666 said:
See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.
Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.
In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.
Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?
Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.
I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
These fall into the category of other relevant aspects of road safety so good to see something being done other than just dishing out speeding fines.Pross said:
Here you go, AI cameras under trial. Stevo will presumably be celebrating these fines and definitely not bemoaning the police making money out of drivers.rjsterry said:
Sure but people are people. Unless you can come up with some practical way you can enforce 'paying more attention' or 'thinking ahead', something measurable that can be defined is all we've got. I mean I can't imagine you'd be up for annual re-tests or AI powered driving with due care cameras (if such a thing were invented).Stevo_666 said:
It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?kingstongraham said:
Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.Stevo_666 said:
See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.
Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.
In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.
Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?
Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.
I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/uks-first-free-standing-ai-road-safety-camera/
Even Jeremy Clarkson agrees.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZwEGlzGms4o&si=BJ-GkNFRQYQYQM36 "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I think it's because that's not true.Stevo_666 said:
So why the disproprortionate focus on speed enforcement compared to other relevant aspects?kingstongraham said:
Yes. Also being an important part of that sentence.Stevo_666 said:
It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?kingstongraham said:
Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.Stevo_666 said:
See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.
Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.
In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.
Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?
Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.
I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.0 -
Although bear in mind that speed and safety sometimes go hand in hand. Statistically, motorways are our safest roads.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Provided it is targeted and the limits are reasonable. The biggest issue for me is that too often they seem to be set by people who assume that drivers must all be in their 80s or half blind.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.
Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.
In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.
Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?
Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.
I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.
Why not do all of these things, including targeted speed reduction? Try to prevent accidents happening, and reduce the (literal) impact when they do? I assume you're not disputing the severity v. speed data that Pross has posted. Not sure if you do risk assessments, but if you identify a risk and then ignore obvious mitigations, you'll be in deep doodoo.
Seems like a fair initial assumption. Any better than that is a bonus."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Not sure it's the case in my area but it is entirely possible that n the UK the revenue raised is an incentive to set limits lower than the natural speed for a given road. Not sure it's the police either as they don't set the limits.pangolin said:
Do you get the impression in your area that the police are cashing in on this low hanging fruit of catching speeders?Stevo_666 said:
The difficulty is how to penalise people who can't drive well. Catching speeders is more straight forward and lucrative - hence the popularity IMO.First.Aspect said:
What's your stance on driving penalties and disqualifications? Seems to me that if you'd prefer instead to raise driving standards, you will need to either more heavily penalise people who can't meet them.Stevo_666 said:
See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.
Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.
In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.
Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?
Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.
I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.
Setting aside that punishing someone can't unbreak a leg, or in my case ankle, which should really make the choice obvious, which sort of measure would you oppose least?
But if you don't have an accident because you pay attention while driving and/or crossing the road, there is no broken leg thzt needs to heal."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It would seem obvious, but the message we seem to get is that those things don't matter as long as motorists stay below the posted speed limit.kingstongraham said:
Yes. I think it's good if drivers look out of their windows. And that pedestrians don't run into the road in front of cars.Stevo_666 said:
It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?kingstongraham said:
Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.Stevo_666 said:
See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.
Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.
In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.
Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?
Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.
I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It is certainly true that there is overwhelmingly more enforcement of speeding offences than other road traffic offences. The question is whether it is disproportionate.kingstongraham said:
I think it's because that's not true.Stevo_666 said:
So why the disproprortionate focus on speed enforcement compared to other relevant aspects?kingstongraham said:
Yes. Also being an important part of that sentence.Stevo_666 said:
It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?kingstongraham said:
Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.Stevo_666 said:
See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.
Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.
In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.
Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?
Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.
I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.
One could argue that the most dangerous behaviour on a motorway, for example, is following too close. Yet you have to almost be pushing the vehicle in front to have this enforced as careless or dangerous driving.
Similarly, our most dangerous roads by far are rural national speed limit A and B roads, where it is possible to comfortably kill yourself and others within the speed limit. Most effectively by overtaking unwisely.
The actual hazards of this type of thing exceed those caused by being 10mph over, per se, but they can't be detected or enforced with technology.
So, I would say that the ease of detecting speeding means it is disproportionately enforced.
0 -
Apart from the campaigns around drink driving, drug driving, phone driving, not driving while tired, road safety for schoolkids etc.Stevo_666 said:
It would seem obvious, but the message we seem to get is that those things don't matter as long as motorists stay below the posted speed limit.kingstongraham said:
Yes. I think it's good if drivers look out of their windows. And that pedestrians don't run into the road in front of cars.Stevo_666 said:
It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?kingstongraham said:
Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.Stevo_666 said:
See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.
Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.
In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.
Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?
Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.
I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.0 -
Few vulnerable road users and everything guided in the same direction with very few junctions so it's hardly a surprise which is why higher speeds are appropriate. I'd have no problem with speed limits being raised to 80mph on motorways although I'd rather the split system they have in France where it is lowered in poor weather. The worst roads for fatalties are rural A and B roads which often have speed limits that are higher than are suited to the historic road layout and which tend to have things like nice big trees to catch vehicles that get it wrong.Stevo_666 said:
Although bear in mind that speed and safety sometimes go hand in hand. Statistically, motorways are our safest roads.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Provided it is targeted and the limits are reasonable. The biggest issue for me is that too often they seem to be set by people who assume that drivers must all be in their 80s or half blind.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.
Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.
In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.
Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?
Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.
I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.
Why not do all of these things, including targeted speed reduction? Try to prevent accidents happening, and reduce the (literal) impact when they do? I assume you're not disputing the severity v. speed data that Pross has posted. Not sure if you do risk assessments, but if you identify a risk and then ignore obvious mitigations, you'll be in deep doodoo.
Seems like a fair initial assumption. Any better than that is a bonus.0 -
The police generally don't support proposals for reduced speed limits unless they are self-enforcing which I assume to be an acknowledgement that they don't have the resources to police the limits. I would also suggest that the proportion of speeding drivers that get caught and fined is low (and as I said the other day that IMHO is the main reason why so many take the chance on speeding).Stevo_666 said:
Not sure it's the case in my area but it is entirely possible that n the UK the revenue raised is an incentive to set limits lower than the natural speed for a given road. Not sure it's the police either as they don't set the limits.pangolin said:
Do you get the impression in your area that the police are cashing in on this low hanging fruit of catching speeders?Stevo_666 said:
The difficulty is how to penalise people who can't drive well. Catching speeders is more straight forward and lucrative - hence the popularity IMO.First.Aspect said:
What's your stance on driving penalties and disqualifications? Seems to me that if you'd prefer instead to raise driving standards, you will need to either more heavily penalise people who can't meet them.Stevo_666 said:
See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.
Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.
In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.
Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?
Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.
I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.
Setting aside that punishing someone can't unbreak a leg, or in my case ankle, which should really make the choice obvious, which sort of measure would you oppose least?
But if you don't have an accident because you pay attention while driving and/or crossing the road, there is no broken leg thzt needs to heal.
I suspect that eventually speed limits will be enforced by GPS or similar, possibly linked to a vehicles engine management system and preventing the vehicle exceeding the posted limit. No doubt this will be heralded as a war on motorists (despite it preventing them running the risk of a fine) and that some politicians will campaign off the back of it but I think it will eventually be inevitable.0 -
Aside from using a mobile phone, what other instances of poor driving do you think are detectable other than by having vast numbers of traffic police patrolling every country road?First.Aspect said:
It is certainly true that there is overwhelmingly more enforcement of speeding offences than other road traffic offences. The question is whether it is disproportionate.kingstongraham said:
I think it's because that's not true.Stevo_666 said:
So why the disproprortionate focus on speed enforcement compared to other relevant aspects?kingstongraham said:
Yes. Also being an important part of that sentence.Stevo_666 said:
It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?kingstongraham said:
Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.Stevo_666 said:
See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.
Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.
In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.
Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?
Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.
I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.
One could argue that the most dangerous behaviour on a motorway, for example, is following too close. Yet you have to almost be pushing the vehicle in front to have this enforced as careless or dangerous driving.
Similarly, our most dangerous roads by far are rural national speed limit A and B roads, where it is possible to comfortably kill yourself and others within the speed limit. Most effectively by overtaking unwisely.
The actual hazards of this type of thing exceed those caused by being 10mph over, per se, but they can't be detected or enforced with technology.
So, I would say that the ease of detecting speeding means it is disproportionately enforced.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Without stating the obvious, speed is a factor in every accident there is, save for parking accidents. After all, if the vehicles were going slowly enough, they'd all have stopped in time.
We as a society deem certain speeds on certain roads to be tolerable as a compromise between convenience and safety.
Beyond that, driving *over the speed limit* is apparently a factor in 1/3 of all fatal road accidents.
The challenge with complaining about 20s over 30s, is that the convenience of doing 30 not 20 is so negligible, it's not a good argument.
And bluntly, if you can't drive safely at 20, you don't deserve to have your licence.1 -
Since we're on the *boring* topic of driver safety, obviously the UK has some of the safest roads in the world.
When I'm driving abroad I like to try and work out the what explains the gap between wherever I am and the UK.
Netherlands you'd think would be as safe or safer than the UK, but the stats say otherwise. They spend a tonne on road infrastructure, spend a lot on road design to improve safety etc, so what is it?
My experience is the distances people leave between each other are easily half to what the average UK driver leaves.
Netherlands has * a lot* of 4 lane motorways, and the way they switch lanes, espcially from faster lanes into slower lanes is just mad; they'll come left from the faster lane and end up only 1m ahead of your bumper.
There's also a tonne of driving in your blind spots (even if your steering wheel was on the correct side).0 -
None really. That's the whole point.rjsterry said:
Aside from using a mobile phone, what other instances of poor driving do you think are detectable other than by having vast numbers of traffic police patrolling every country road?First.Aspect said:
It is certainly true that there is overwhelmingly more enforcement of speeding offences than other road traffic offences. The question is whether it is disproportionate.kingstongraham said:
I think it's because that's not true.Stevo_666 said:
So why the disproprortionate focus on speed enforcement compared to other relevant aspects?kingstongraham said:
Yes. Also being an important part of that sentence.Stevo_666 said:
It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?kingstongraham said:
Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.Stevo_666 said:
See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.
Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.
In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.
Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?
Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.
I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.
One could argue that the most dangerous behaviour on a motorway, for example, is following too close. Yet you have to almost be pushing the vehicle in front to have this enforced as careless or dangerous driving.
Similarly, our most dangerous roads by far are rural national speed limit A and B roads, where it is possible to comfortably kill yourself and others within the speed limit. Most effectively by overtaking unwisely.
The actual hazards of this type of thing exceed those caused by being 10mph over, per se, but they can't be detected or enforced with technology.
So, I would say that the ease of detecting speeding means it is disproportionately enforced.0 -
National speed limits roads are not designed to be hooning it at 60mph all the time, so if you are doing that then you're not driving according to your environment.
Sure if it's straight and with good visibility go for it, but let's not pretend that hooning around blind corners on a narrow track at 60mph is sensible or even defensible.0 -
They are not, on the whole, "designed" at all.rick_chasey said:National speed limits roads are not designed to be hooning it at 60mph all the time, so if you are doing that then you're not driving according to your environment.
Sure if it's straight and with good visibility go for it, but let's not pretend that hooning around blind corners on a narrow track at 60mph is sensible or even defensible.0 -
Driving into the advanced stop box. (And other red light offences.)rjsterry said:
Aside from using a mobile phone, what other instances of poor driving do you think are detectable other than by having vast numbers of traffic police patrolling every country road?First.Aspect said:
It is certainly true that there is overwhelmingly more enforcement of speeding offences than other road traffic offences. The question is whether it is disproportionate.kingstongraham said:
I think it's because that's not true.Stevo_666 said:
So why the disproprortionate focus on speed enforcement compared to other relevant aspects?kingstongraham said:
Yes. Also being an important part of that sentence.Stevo_666 said:
It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?kingstongraham said:
Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.Stevo_666 said:
See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.
Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.
In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.
Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?
Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.
I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.
One could argue that the most dangerous behaviour on a motorway, for example, is following too close. Yet you have to almost be pushing the vehicle in front to have this enforced as careless or dangerous driving.
Similarly, our most dangerous roads by far are rural national speed limit A and B roads, where it is possible to comfortably kill yourself and others within the speed limit. Most effectively by overtaking unwisely.
The actual hazards of this type of thing exceed those caused by being 10mph over, per se, but they can't be detected or enforced with technology.
So, I would say that the ease of detecting speeding means it is disproportionately enforced.
Plenty more if more cars had dashcams and people reported illegally dangerous overtaking etc.0 -
And we all know how dangerous being in a box junction can be. Thank god that can be rigorously enforced also.kingstongraham said:
Driving into the advanced stop box. (And other red light offences.)rjsterry said:
Aside from using a mobile phone, what other instances of poor driving do you think are detectable other than by having vast numbers of traffic police patrolling every country road?First.Aspect said:
It is certainly true that there is overwhelmingly more enforcement of speeding offences than other road traffic offences. The question is whether it is disproportionate.kingstongraham said:
I think it's because that's not true.Stevo_666 said:
So why the disproprortionate focus on speed enforcement compared to other relevant aspects?kingstongraham said:
Yes. Also being an important part of that sentence.Stevo_666 said:
It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?kingstongraham said:
Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.Stevo_666 said:
See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.
Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.
In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.
Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?
Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.
I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.
One could argue that the most dangerous behaviour on a motorway, for example, is following too close. Yet you have to almost be pushing the vehicle in front to have this enforced as careless or dangerous driving.
Similarly, our most dangerous roads by far are rural national speed limit A and B roads, where it is possible to comfortably kill yourself and others within the speed limit. Most effectively by overtaking unwisely.
The actual hazards of this type of thing exceed those caused by being 10mph over, per se, but they can't be detected or enforced with technology.
So, I would say that the ease of detecting speeding means it is disproportionately enforced.
Plenty more if more cars had dashcams and people reported illegally dangerous overtaking etc.0 -
You don't get many of those on country roads though.kingstongraham said:
Driving into the advanced stop box. (And other red light offences.)rjsterry said:
Aside from using a mobile phone, what other instances of poor driving do you think are detectable other than by having vast numbers of traffic police patrolling every country road?First.Aspect said:
It is certainly true that there is overwhelmingly more enforcement of speeding offences than other road traffic offences. The question is whether it is disproportionate.kingstongraham said:
I think it's because that's not true.Stevo_666 said:
So why the disproprortionate focus on speed enforcement compared to other relevant aspects?kingstongraham said:
Yes. Also being an important part of that sentence.Stevo_666 said:
It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?kingstongraham said:
Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.Stevo_666 said:
See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.
Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.
In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.
Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?
Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.
I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.
One could argue that the most dangerous behaviour on a motorway, for example, is following too close. Yet you have to almost be pushing the vehicle in front to have this enforced as careless or dangerous driving.
Similarly, our most dangerous roads by far are rural national speed limit A and B roads, where it is possible to comfortably kill yourself and others within the speed limit. Most effectively by overtaking unwisely.
The actual hazards of this type of thing exceed those caused by being 10mph over, per se, but they can't be detected or enforced with technology.
So, I would say that the ease of detecting speeding means it is disproportionately enforced.
Plenty more if more cars had dashcams and people reported illegally dangerous overtaking etc.
In urban areas you quite often get picked up by cameras for things like box junction and bus lane offences. Cardiff is particularly 'bad' for box junction enforcement. They're more intended for keeping traffic moving than safety though.0 -
Is the summary of the current debate that speed doesn't kill dangerous people do? Sounds familiar.0
-
They are flat earthers.TheBigBean said:Is the summary of the current debate that speed doesn't kill dangerous people do? Sounds familiar.
On a slight tangent - how did the BBC give such a prominent soap box to the Tw@ts who peddled this stuff, and let them repeat it for decades?
0 -
-
Well they certainly do now.rick_chasey said:Because plenty of people think that.
A whole generation of Gammons anyway.0 -
You overestimate how much media affects opinions IMO and instead underestimate how much it reflects opinion.
0 -
That's not what has happened in the US. Or here, with regard to Brexit.rick_chasey said:You overestimate how much media affects opinions IMO and instead underestimate how much it reflects opinion.
0
