Police poison speed debate with fuzzy figures This may be the week when the Department for Transport learns about the risks of making a case for road safety based on figures that every expert in the field knows to be untrue. Swindon Council got a good old-fashioned clip around the ear on Thursday from David Ainsworth, Deputy Chief Constable of Wiltshire, who declared …
You miss the point people are making. In a world of cameras someone driving 1 metre behind you and your kids doing 70mph, in an old banger, steering with their knees, on their mobile is not going to get caught (therefore unlikely to stop his behaviour). They want a policeman to spot this behaviour and stop it.
You only have to look at today's news on crime statistics (and previous similar embarassing incidents for official crime figures) to see that the police statistics will always show what their political masters want them to show. Mainly, I suspect, because there is a perception that if they give the government the figures they want then they will receive more funding as a result. Whether that is true or not is a question that only the government can answer.
The very fact that the police estimate whether speed was a cause of an accident tells you all you need to know about the figures. An estimated meter "reading" does not tell you how much gas I used in the last quarter. Likewise an estimation of speed does not tell you how fast a vehicle was travelling. If hard evidence of speed can't be recorded then no estimate should be made. Statistica based on estimates are totally worthless.
Do we have an estimate of how many of these estimates were actually incorrect?
"If your child was run over by someone speeding you would soon change your tune."
A child corssing the road, hit by a car doing 50 mph in a 60mph zone. The child will die.
So is it better
a) To put a speed camera in place to NOT catch the car doing less than the speed limit
or
b) Spend the money teaching the kids about road safety?
6 - 12% is caused bu speed.
That leaves 88 - 94% not caused by speed. Now where would the money be best spent?
Here's some ideas:
a) Bad driving. This can be due to driving to fast for the conditions or the car, BUT nothing to do with speed itself, otherwsise everyone doing over 30 mph will be dead.
How about incentives for people, like discounted car control course or advanced driving courses?
b) Pedestrans not looking when crossing, or crossing in unsuitable places
"51. 80% of child pedestrian KSIs occurred away from pedestrian crossing facilities in 2005.....28% of these child casualties were masked from the driver's view by a parked or stationary vehicle" - source dft 2005 statisics.
Lets drill it into the kids the "Green Cross Code" and how about regular cycle lessons, dedicated school buses? (Almost as many kids are killed in cars as out of them)
c) Lack of safe routes for cyclist and pedestrians. This could be inproved lighting, more pedestrian crossing, barriers and decent cycle lanes.
Some of the figures banded are extremly biased a road near where I live they hailed the cameras a success as the casulty rate dropped on a busy dual carrageway dropped by about 70%. The fact they reduced the speed limt, closed off all the crossing point, added 2 sets of extra lights, improved the juntcions , added longer slips roads, must of been purely cosmetic.
I'm all for the Council, it's not their job to Police the roads, so why not spend it on other road safety schemes.
>>"can people please note the difference in these statistics before they try and compare them"
But that might lessen some people's sense of righteous indignation at being expected to obey the law (or at least, obey the law+10%+3mph, or whatever).
Clearly, we'd be *far* better either not having any speed limits, or having them, but not actually bothering to enforce them.
Still, it would be good to see all the statistics about the claimed factors contributing to serious or fatal accidents
It'd also be interesting to see what correlation there was between being involved in such accidents, and having a history of speeding convictions.
The big issue isn't really speed cameras, it's the fact that the government has decided it wants to reduce road fatalities, and one of its chosen methods is to make people drive slower. All around where I live, roads are having their speed limits reduced and traffic-calming is being introduced. Although people argue about speed cameras, the evidence is they have at least a small effect on the number of accidents, and other measures reducing speed probably also save a few lives.
The question nobody seems to be asking is: what is the balance between wanting to get to places reasonably quickly and wanting to end up dead? Politicians are totally unprepared to talk about death dispassionately, whether it's the inevitable civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, whether it's drug rationing, or whether it's in transport. People need to grow up and think about these issues like adults.
So, if bunches of dead flowers (yeah, remember someone by killing plants) contribute towards crashes then surely police ought to go after the suppliers. The flower sellers at traffic lights, garage forecourts and supermarkets are all culpable. Yer average buyer of small amounts is once again fingered and the pushers get clean away.
"if you have a statistically abnormal event, such as a higher number of accidents in a given period, then the number of accidents in the next period will necessarily be lower as a direct result of the previous period having a higher number"
So I throw three sixes in a row, by your reasoning I'm less likely to throw a six on my next go. Crap. Or indeed craps. My chances of throwing a six on my next go is one in six, just like it was on the previous three goes.
RTM means that after my three sixes things will continue as normal, IOW I will continue to have a 1 in 6 change of throwing a six every time I throw the dice. So after enough throws of the dice things will tend back towards the expected mean of having thrown exactly the same number face on the dice. The important word in that sentence being TEND. That is to say there will be a tendency towards things averaging out to the expect mean, it will not quickly return to the expected mean by a lack of sixes until things reach the expected mean.
If you get three consecutive heads when tossing a coin, there is no statistcal rule that says your next three throws will come up tails.
BTW Local authorities and safety partnerships are not necessairilly the best of friends. There was a high accident stretch of road not far from my house. The police were adamant that the cause of the accidents was excess speed. The highways department of the LA were adamant it was the layout of the junction, and spent a fortune on realigning the junction. The police insisted that a speed camera should be installed. The police made no contribution to the junction improvements, but the LA were expected to contribute to the speed camera. Of course nobody can prove which solution is responsible for the fall in accidents, if indeed either of them are.
Gareth (Friday 24th October 2008 13:01 GMT) is correct.
For Fred (24th October 2008 12:35 GMT):
While it is true that 12% of all fatalities involve a driver in excess of the speed limit, the speed won’t be the only factor. There are an average of 2.4 contributing factors per fatality (source: dft_transstats_612594.pdf). So the driver who nearly killed me last month probably was in excess of the speed limit (well, he took a lamppost 90 meters down the road, from my side of the pavement – passing me with it in the process (not bad for a 40 limit), but I think the fact that he was arrested on scene with 95mg on his breath was the real reason for my everso near miss.
HOWEVER, use of the fatality figure in this instance is highly misleading.
Speed camera effectiveness is measured on the rate of KSI (killed or seriously injured) not just fatalities; indeed the installation policy was based on KSI rates. It follows that less than 12% of all KSIs involve a driver in excess of the speed limit. But hey, are we really surprised of this additional example of convenient interpretation of statistics by those pro-camera!
And for the inevitable speedophile comments (those truly obsessed with speed)
@Nic Posted Friday 24th October 2008 13:34 GMT:
How about
If your child was run over by someone NOT speeding (or otherwise offending) you should face jail for neglect for failing to ensure they are able to cross the roads. Let’s be honest, many, many, many more are killed by lawful drivers than those driving in an illegal manner. It’s funny how those anti anti-speed camera never mentions that huh!
“It doesn't take a genius to work out that you should operate them within the constraints of a speed limiting system and take great care”
I would bet money that you don’t know the real reason why that is. Only knowledge of that will let one understand how our road safety policy is failing (and it IS failing).
Steve B (safespeed member)
Driving along the A40, there are a number of speed cameras on a road with 3 lanes either side which goes from a speed limit of 40, to 50 and then 70 as you get further out of london...
If the traffic is quiet enough, people do 70-80 through the 40mph bit, hit the brakes hard for the camera (potentially causing a crash if someone is tailgating), and then accelerating heavily afterwards (thus wasting fuel)... Come the 50 and 70mph limits they just increase speed by another 10-20mph.
The worst part is the sudden deceleration for the camera. It doesn't change the speed people drive except for that small area, but it does add the danger of the sudden braking.
Incidentally, the speed limits were created many years ago... Since then cars have become more powerful and considerably safer. A modern car will quite happily cruise at well over 100mph... Why not raise the motorway speed limits during off-peak times so you can cruise up an empty road at 100mph? People do this anyway...
"You can opt not to fund speed cameras by simply not speeding. If you can't do that then don't drive or at least don't drive anywhere near my kids."
Or, alternatively you could opt to teach your kids common sense when it comes to road traffic. You don't have to be hit by a car that is doing more than the speed limit to get killed by it. If you jump out from behind a car at the very last moment, the driver has almost nothing they can do, and may end up steering into oncoming traffic. If your kids are going to be causing road accidents like that, don't let them anywhere near my car.
I fully agree with the current speed limits in built up areas, but most of the talk here is about speeding on motorways where a lot of the time it is perfectly safe to drive over the speed limit. There used to be no speed limits on motorways. They weren't even put in place because of accidents - they were put in place because some idiot drove his 180mph racing car down it and the government got spooked at what *might* happen. Police drivers are still trained to drive well over the speed limit, so don't try to pretend that it is always automatically unsafe to drive over the limit if you have had proper training.
If only 12% of fatal accidents happen while over the speed limit, that tells you that speed is a pretty *small* factor in accidents. What percentage of people regularly break the speed limit? I'd suggest about 15% or more since Wikipedia states that speed limits are usually set by an 85th percentile rule. Greater speed does reduce reaction time, but accidents are always caused by driver error, like taking a corner too fast (too fast might still be under the speed limit) or observation. Going slower does observation easier. If you trained people to do more observation, they naturally drive slower around town. I know I did when I did my advanced driver training and test. But if you train people to think that being under the speed limit automatically makes everything okay, they can spend more time thinking about the speedometer than worrying about what is happening around them.
People like you need to stop with your whiny "think of the children" act. People do not mind 30mph speed limits in residential areas. This is more about B road and motorway driving. Your children should *not* be playing in these roads if you have done your job as a parent.
As we all know statistics allows us to show pretty much anything, right?.. So do they really mean that the 20% reduction (which is attributed to the speed cameras) in accidents are only taking into the account the accidents that actually were due to exceeding the speed limit? Thus, if the total number of accidents caused by speeding are 6% of the total, 20% reduction in 6% is a mere 1.2%!..
Where's the IT angle btw?..
The Ball bag comment made me laugh :)
I keep my kids safe as I can and yes I do teach them as well as possible.
I agree speed is not 100% of the cause of accidents but accidents at slower speeds cause less fatalities. Simple.
For the sake of getting there a couple of minutes early (or worse pissing away fuel by accelerating up to traffic lights like so many numpties do) you are willing to put peoples lives in further danger.
Of course YOU are a safe driver, its all the other idiots on the road. They don't have your skills. For that matter, you drive better with a drink in you. Blaa blaa blaa.
The only reason most of the anti-cam prats in this thread are so verbose about the subject is that it is one of the few aspects of law that actually affects them. Okay so you don't go shop lifting but you DO break the law on the road. But that's not a real crime, not really no...
wake up and smell the sh!t you are spreading.
Oh and to the Motor Bike guy. You sound like an angry teenager not a grown adult.
So, the widely reviled speed cameras not only really do reduce accidents (by 20%), but they also turn a profit* ?
I'm sorry, can someone point out the problem with that again ?
Arguments against our new dayglo overlords seem to be largely based on what they don't do, viz catching all the other pricks. While I agree that 'Something Must Be Done'** about the appalling standards of driver competence to which I am regularly witness, this is a bit like saying that screwdrivers aren't much good for hammering in nails. Like, duh!
I would have thought that dropping accident figures at black spots by 20% and making a profit out of it is a Good Thing. After all, an improvement for cheaper than free seems like awfully good value. Sure the state and it's pointy headed enforcers are fudging the figures a bit, but if that sort of thing really bugs you, go live in a democracy.
As a further point, I'd suggest that driving over the posted limit on any road is probably ill advised, since it's become clear to me that traffic engineers are a deeply anti social bunch who would seemingly rather we were all dead. YMMV.
*Although that statement seems to conflict with the GBP 320k for a share of three cams figure, unless there really are an awful lot of utter knob heads on the roads of Swindon.
** Spouting about driver education in this context is an epic fail, since what would really be required is actually mass driver RE education, and I doubt you''d all be willing to hand your licences back in and be forced to undergo a re-test at advanced level, for instance, and even in the unlikely event that it were to happen, it's quite obvious that as soon as a solid majority of drivers get their licence, they ignore everything they werer ever taught.
From experience I'm pretty sure that spikes in the steering wheels, no air bags, etc. will do nothing to make drivers more careful.
Every day I drive on a 4 mile stretch of bendy, narrow fen road with BIG ditches on either side, slow moving tractors, fast moving speedfreak knobhead bikertards and poor visibility. All those dangerous things haven't stopped me seeing two cars in the ditch and one on its roof shortly after it passed me.
You can take a driver to a dangerous bend but you can't make him (most likely) slow down.
I love the diplomatic way Dr. Mountain deals with the issue of revenues. To paraphrase: they save lives and they make shedloads of dosh in the process, so we're not going to look into the details too closely, innit?
Personally, I think there's got to be a better way of improving road safety than just fining motorists for speeding offences. Setting up a public database of road safety figures (no. of accidents, fatalities, amount of traffic, and road quality metrics like surface condition, road markings, black spots, average speeds, etc.) would make more sense than any ID database. You could cap revenues available from speed cameras and/or make access to the funds raised in this way conditional on showing an improvement in road safety. You have to decouple the idea of speed cameras as safety device and revenue stream, otherwise it's just a license to print money and none of the metrics will be trustworthy, as pointed out in the article.
I'd like to see more effort put into driver education, and not just over speeding. I wonder has the MoT ever considered scrapping mandatory fines and replacing it with warnings-then-fines? Or discretionary fines, where the officer can use his judgement as to how dangerous your driving was? Maybe this is all pie in the sky thinking, but I'd like to think that the police could improve road safety by educating road users about the risks they're putting themselves and others in instead of merely doling out punitive measures. A friendly word to the wise ("oh my, overtaking on a blind corner? do you realise how lucky you were not to be creamed?") should do more to change behaviour than jumping straight into an antagonistic legal scenario. It'd be nice to see a Cops-style tv program that eschewed car chases and idiot criminals for practical road safety advice, too.
I would be in favour of having fines linked to the driver's income, though, as is the case in Finland, I think.
There are a lot of people opposed to the use of speed cameras that aren't saying that they agree with speeding. The problem that many of us, including me, is that the speed cameras are only looking at *one* contributory factor in road accidents. As many people have stated in comments in this and other realted threads, speed cameras are an "easy" and frankly lazy way for some authorities to be seen to be applying some measures to combat accidents.
I personally agree with the other commenters who have expressed the opinion that less money should be spent on speed cameras and much more on having traffic officers back out patrolling the roads. The experience that these officers get during their service means that they are often able to spot and stop dangerous drivers before they get into an accident. They can see the drunken or drugged up driver that's weaving across the road, the drivers distracted by using a mobile phone or having a child loose in the back seat, the road rage driver tailgating someone in front of them, the driver cutting in and out of traffic to try and get a few yards further up the road in slow moving traffic, etc., etc.. These will only be picked up by the cameras if they also happen to be speeding. I personally feel that an increase in traffic officers will have a much better impact on road safety.
One final thing to talk about and that's the fact that I think that there should be variable speed limits on certain roads during different parts of the day. For example, I travel from one side of Leeds to the other several times a week using the M621. This is a 3-lane motorway that has a speed limit of 50mph along much of the route. I can understand this during the day when there's lots of traffic coming on and off the different junctions, but then when I'm travelling along it at 1 or 2 in the morning with hardly another car in sight, why can't I do 70? I'm sure that there are many other roads around where the set speed limit is set lower than normal for a periodic set of circumstances that could have those lifted to the normal speed limit where those circumstances no longer apply.
you break the law (by speeding) I don't see why you should complain about attempts to catch you
speed cameras are used _because_ they don't require highly trained (and therefore expensive# people to stand there, because those people might be needed elsewhere, and because, by members of the public continually getting caught by them, there's a demostrable need for them.
if noone speeded there'd be no point in speed cameras. If you think the speed limits are wrong, then vote in someone that'll change them. No politician wants to change them? Probably because most people disagree with you. Them's the breaks.
note: 320,000 a year does not equal 10 people at 32,000 a year each. Admin overheads (like, say, a building for them to leave their paperwork and change, never mind administrating PAYE and national insurance) add more than you'd think
"I would be in favour of having fines linked to the driver's income, though, as is the case in Finland, I think."
So those who are most likely to speed - teenagers/doll-supported boy racers et al are free to continue to do so?
(for some strange reason paris was already pre-selected :-D)
With respect, it's not really been proven that breaking the speed limit is the major cause of death or accidents. I am like most people when it comes to obeying the speed limits... if the road conditions allow it, I don't have a problem with going slightly over the speed limit. As someone pointed out, speed limits (and blind adherence to them) are a blunt instrument. The major factor as far as I can see is driver awareness (not their own sense of superior skill or reaction speed, as too many fools think they are "good drivers" and can respond in time to prevent an accident when in reality they can't).
I live in Ireland and during the driving test the tester doesn't care so much if you break the speed limit. The safest speed to be travelling is the same speed as other traffic (notwithstanding other hazards such as pedestrians, etc), so if you're travelling on a good road with a 50km/hr speed limit but all the other traffic is doing at least 60km/hr, then the tester won't bat an eyelid if you're keeping pace with them, so long as you're keeping your distance, keeping an eye on other traffic, indicating properly, anticipating the need to slow down as conditions change, etc. As with designing user interfaces, the Principle of Least Astonishment applies well for driving too.
Police are now using experts (the same ones who are usually used to identify muggers from grainy CCTV footage) to pick out identifying marks on your bike (missing bolts, after market parts) facial features, clothing etc).. The description is handed to the local plod and next time you get stopped all your chickens come home to roost...
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Biker_jailed_for_pulling_82mph_wheelie&in_article_id=332586&in_page_id=34
thought you might like to know..
Firstly of course I teach my children proper road sense.
Secondly, well we agree on built up areas so lets leave that one. As for motorway speeds; true they did not have speed restrictions at one point. Well done, there were far fewer cars then too and they had slower top speeds. / queue german motorway responses...
"so don't try to pretend that it is always automatically unsafe to drive over the limit if you have had proper training."
The quote above interest me. Its what I hear a lot of in one of my lines of work (which has a lot to do with this subject). Trained police are indeed permitted to travel above the speed limit. With that exception all others are not. Plain and simple dont speed it's law. Deal with it.
Oh and on that note. It's people who claim that they know what they are doing so they can speed that put everyone in danger. Do you really expect the police and courts to accept that and say "Yeah you sound like you know what you are doing so you can go above the speed limit, all others can't though". EVERYONE (with the exception of my late grandad!) thinks they are capable of speeds over than 70 and that they know what they are doing.
Plenty of people think they are okay with Class A drugs too. Should we let those that seem okay to take them?
Drive at 70 and relax. It's not a slow speed, you will get to your destination and you may even live longer.
/ I sound like I am 80 in this post and I realise that. I'm actually 30 FYI.
I asked the local Scammers about how they calculated their figures... no idea. After much pressing they revealed the figures were based on number of accidents from one camera, going down from 1 to 0! A 100% improvement in road safety.
Ask them about the blatant flaw in their calculations and you get no answer.
Lost faith in them years ago, it's just a blag for political and financial gain.
"Or, alternatively you could opt to teach your kids common sense when it comes to road traffic."
Sanctimonious claptrap.
And you probably need to read a few more comments - the discussion has included all classes of roads.
Kids, along with other pedestrians, cyclists, animals, horses and riders, and even other motor vehicles do unpredictable things. The higher your speed, the less time you have to respond to an unforeseen event. Speed limits are set to find a balance between convenience for the vehicle user and level of injury for the victim.
If you speed you are a knob. If yo speed and complain about speed cameras you are a completely feckless cumshedder.
(I can take no credit for the excellent term of abuse I read in a different comment)
Anyone got stats to compare with County Durham? They don't have any fixed speed cameras at all, and as far as I know there are no plans to put them in place either. Instead they have mobile cameras which can be mobilised to any area they like (as long as the speed camera warning signs are in place of course). This means that:-
A) You don't actually see these speed cameras about
B) You can't just slow down at one particular site. They could be anywhere along a road that has speed camera signs.
So, anyone got any stats to show that fixed speed cameras are neither cost effective or more useful in reducing accidents than road layout, signage and lighting?
Safespeed seems to have been little more than the late Paul Smith and his computer. Someone here claims to be a member - but although the website still seems to be soliciting £45 quid a year for nothing much, it seems to be otherwise moribund, with nothing on its homepage more recent than March 2007.
Smith was a popular rentagob for journalists, but his claims were often ill thought out even if useful in an extremist sort of way.
The presumption that the introduction of cameras as a road safety measure makes is that someone exceeding the speed limit is being dangerous, someone adhering to the limit is safe. At best this is woefully inaccurate, at best it is downright dangerous. You are effectively telling people that they can use the speed limit of a road to determine safe speeds, rather than actually reacting to current conditions. At times 120mph on the motorway is perfectly safe. At other times, 10mph in a 40 limit is deadly.
People are conditioned to believe that speed, or lack thereof, makes them a safe driver. In reality a fixed speed limit for a road makes no sense in the majority of cases since it can give that false feeling of safety. 30mph past a school at 3:30, for example.
All accidents are caused by either driver carelessness or by a freak occurance. Carelessness includes, in this definition, tail gaiting, lack of observation or just inadvisable maneuvers (overtaking on a blind bend, say). There are always going to be bad drivers on the roads and they are going to cause accidents. Suggesting that they cause those accidents because they exceed the speed limit is inaccurate. They cause them because they use inappropriate speed for the situation.
To demonstrate more clearly what I mean, could you drive safely if you could not see the speedo in your car? Of course you could. In fact I would wager you would drive more safely, not because you feared the speed limits, but because you would become more aware of your surrounding.
Idiots will always remain, those that drive recklessly should be punished to the full extent the law allows. Speed cameras should be abolished as they serve no purpose other than to give people a false perception of speed and safety and create ill feeling towards the police/government. They do not improve road safety in the majority of cases.
"I wonder has the MoT ever considered scrapping mandatory fines and replacing it with warnings-then-fines?"
certain forces will give you a 60 quid fine and a 3 hour warning/education instead of points if you're not more than 8 mph over the limit (30 and 40 limits only).. only get the option once every 3 years though..
but police can and do use their judgment if they stop you.. say £60 and 3 points if it's late at night on an empty motorway and your speed would normally get you more..
saying that i've been doing over a ton on the m40 at midnight and just got flashed with blue lights.. didn't even get pulled
There is two factors to any car crash ( i do not call them accidents as that implies that no one could have done anything about it).
The one factor is speed and its a minor one.
The second Factor is "teh stupid" and sadly this can not be quantified(yet)
Some mentioned before that even according the inflated stats the speeding is only a factor in 13% of crashes.
Why are we not trying to figure out the other 87% and try preventing those.
Yes the other reason are drivers not paying attention to the road/conditions/environment.
If a road is dry, with light or no traffic and and good visibility speed is not going to cause a crash, but if you are not paying attention to the road and other drivers out there that will cause a crash and speed only shortens the time you have for your reactions.
I say make it mandatory to take a refresher driving test every 2-4 years.
Make the penalties for other infractions more severe.
Changing lanes without signaling, tailgating, cutting people off and other unsafe lane changes. Talking on the mobile without handsfree set, eating a sandwich or putting on makeup, reading newspaper or book. Yes i have seen all of those...
Also car condition is important, if someones tire profile resembles Mr. TELLY SAVALAS head then the car doesn't belong on the road.
"How hard is it to get a commercial airline pilots license? Very hard is the answer. Yet flying one (badly or expertly) is very easy, to the point of being easier than driving a car. So why isn't it harder to get a bike, car, van, lorry or towing license?..."
Actually, for an averagely-abled person, it's quite easy to gain a PPL, and I suspect not much harder for a commercial one.
What it also is, however, is EXPENSIVE. And TIME-CONSUMING. So no one will do it unless they have a reasonable chance of getting a well-paid job at the end of it. The proposal for making car licenses harder to get wilkl just end up as another tax....
I have been caught speeding twice in my driving career, all points have been served and I am now clean and more mature about how I drive my Car. Admittendly this is due to me getting older rather than me learning from my mistakes.
Anyway, when I got caught it wasn't the £60 fine that annoyed me (though it did cut into my beer money) It was more the fact that I got 3 points on my licence and realised that I was a few steps towards losing it.
So if they want to prove that all they are interested in is public safety rather than making money, remove the fine and just slap the 3 points on the offenders. I wonder how many speed cameras local councils will put up if it only meant public safety will benefit.
Both the toff and the benefits kid will have three points on their license.
Being without a car means the benefits kid will be unable to drive a car (or face prison). A toff won't be put in prison, and can afford a chauffer. Unless he's dinged 1% of his salary for each offense, he won't care about the fine (unlike the benefits kid) and the ban doesn't mean he can't manage (unlike the benefits kid).
Your comments are a diversion from the speed camera debate; the article is about speed cameras, not speed enforcement per se.
In an ideal world your point would be valid, unfortunately they aren’t.
Yes, we need speed limits (although perhaps not all the time for all roads); yes we need people to abide by them, but that does not mean the limits should keep being reduced; there is such a thing as too low too. To take limits below reasonable levels encourages drivers to exceed the speed limit, both deliberately and accidentally. This makes the actions of drivers unpredictable hence other road users cannot reliably predict the actions of drivers – that’s the real danger. Many dual carriageways with their new 30 limits are perfect examples, as are 40 limits through mile upon mile of motorway roadworks. About a third of all motorway accidents are sleep related (that’s more than exceeding the speed limit), so do we really want to make this worse by forcing drivers to drive in less stimulating conditions, for longer?
“We wouldn't accept that for any other area of law.”
Exactly! There is something really wrong with how this part of the law is being applied!
But that's not "speed kills".
If you drive below the speed limit but are concentrating on
a) the tailgater who won't be happy unless you're AT the limit
b) the speedo because you won't be happy if the car goes over the limit
you can have many more accidents.
Fewer deaths, but having your bollocks speared by the bull bars is not nice.
Oh, and on the "think of the children" bit. 4x4 moms who DEMAND a large car like this "to protect my children" you don't seem to give a shit that your car has a bonnet that rather than throw the child up and over will hit them square, making a more certain kill (or throwing them on the ground in front of your wheels). Bull bars make the recipient of a collision more likely to die.
So why not ban them or fine people five times the amount for any accident with such a vehicle speeding/being in an accident? After all, if the reason for the cams is to punish speeding and remove the fatalities, these 4x4 bullbars should be banned or fined too, yes?
And you can't say that you're a safe driver, so it's OK for you. As you just pointed out, everyone says "I'm a good driver, it's all the others that are crap".
Igor Mozolevsky Posted Friday 24th October 2008 15:21 GMT
"I would be in favour of having fines linked to the driver's income, though, as is the case in Finland, I think
If you go to Magistrates court rather than go for a fixed penalty that is excatly what you will get. Fines are banded as perecentages of your income.
That goes for all fines in court.
Couldn't agree with you more Nic, glad to see there are at least a few of us with some sense.
To the guy who is proud to announce that he races up to cameras on his bike and throws them the V sign because of the lack of a front plate - you sir are a chasm amongst all the other a'holes and give all bikers a bad name.
Why is it so hard to keep below the limit, why is it so important to have to race from one place to the next. I personally wouldn't care if the statistics only showed that all the cameras only reduced road deaths by 1% - I can't actually believe that many of the numpties here actually think any percentage is acceptable...
@Ian Johnston
The same could be said about your comments; the difference is that those from safespeed are explained as opposed to simply claimed. The fact is that many cogent arguments have been put into the spotlight, rightly so, partly thanks to the safespeed campaign. Only disingenuous bigots would seek to discredit it. Prove me wrong by addressing the points I have raised!
@County Durham
YES, I have such a document FROM THE TRL – the data is very telling indeed. In terms of % change of accidents (from before and after installation), Speed cameras and RLCs are within the bottom 5 of 34 safety measures.
@ The Other Steve
“So, the widely reviled speed cameras not only really do reduce accidents (by 20%),”
That’s wrong for two reasons:
a) the ‘speed camera scheme’ as it is known, accounts for only 20% of the overall drop of KSI rate, not 20% absolutely.
b) Dr Mountain’s analysis did not account for ‘bias on selection’ – other safety measures implemented within the range of the speed camera site, but the credit for any apparent KSI drop always goes only to the camera. Camera sites can be defined to be up to 5km in length, so you would expect to see a few other safety measures in there too. Hence it is possible for cameras to be having a negative effect.
I wouldn’t call taking money from those who are otherwise careful as ‘profit’, especially when the resource is used to fund further misallocation of ineffective resource.
@ Nic,
“sh!t you are spreading”
Excuse me - you are accusing others of misinformation when we are only seeking to expose the misinformation spouted by those with the vested interests?
Your simple argument of “slower speeds cause less fatalities” overlooks the probability of the accident being caused in the first place. Incorrect limits can increase the risk of an accident occurring in the first place (see my previous comment) – which kinda tends towards balancing things out. The errant pedestrians and cyclists would soon be more aware of the dangers if drivers were forced to drive at 70 in all areas at all times, so would fatalities soon reduce?
PS, in over 10 years of holding my full UK licence, I have never faced being prosecuted for speeding!
"Drive at 70 and relax. It's not a slow speed, you will get to your destination and you may even live longer."
You do know that the 70 limit was set in the 60's and was chosen because that was the maximum speed of a popular car? Are you seriously going to suggest that a 1960's car being driven flat out is exactly as safe as a modern mid-range saloon which is loafing along at the same speed? A camera can't tell the difference, a real copper can. The motoring world has moved on, the law needs to update. Many modern vehicles can cruise easily and safely well above 70 where conditions allow.
Let's step away from the inflated 12% (less than 1 in 8) fatal incidents attributed to speeding and concentrate on the nearly 100% we can attribute to human stupidity. Get real coppers to put the dangerously incompetent/stupid off the road and we can look forward to better safety from reducing that ignored 88% of non-speeding incidents with reduced congestion as a bonus.
Finally, put "unskilled and unaware" into google, read the paper and think about how well that models drivers. The sheer number of people who are both unskilled to take charge of a potentially lethal tool and are unaware of the consequences of their lack of skill is terrifying. Speed, taken as always completely out of context, is not the problem. Incompetence and stupidity is.
"If your child was run over by someone speeding you would soon change your tune."
Whilst yes this is a very tragic situation, it is also fairly rare. Those who do get run over are more likely to be run over by someone doing the correct speed, and likely because the child has run out between parked cars etc.
The vast amount of speed controls around residential areas are based on FUD causing parents to kick up a big fuss based on a statistic which places just breathing air as being more dangerous than a child crossing the road! (and we don't ban breathing do we?).
Not that I don't agree with reducing speed in residential areas just in case though, but speed cameras as a solution is the worst solution. It causes anger amongst drivers and they will often accelerate once past the camera as an act of defiance, or just see the camera as an annoyance.
In the case of the child and the parked cars, there is a good/better solution there. Deal with the inappropriate parking of cars, or provide better parking solutions. Or, reduce the number of Chelsea Tractors and people can see better down the road. Likewise, stop these parking near schools where kids are more likely to be on the road.
The best solution I have seen though is the electronic warning sign. A lot of these have sprung up around Surrey in the last year or two, and the impact is huge judging by the behaviour of drivers. Locally, not only do most people slow down on seeing them, but they remain at that speed also.
However, the majority of accidents occur at junctions and on roads with sharp bends (regardless of speed) and most in my opinion are caused by lack of concentration and judgement.
On my way to work, there is one very bendy road that causes a lot of accidents and claims numerous lives per year (just have to look at the amount of flowers on the trees!). The problem is with the road and a lack of driver education. I have seen a near accident on the same road and the driver was going well under the speed required for the road but somehow still managed to lose control. Likely was paying attention to the radio, his phone, etc, than the approaching bend. It also doesn't take much speed to be killed on impact with a solid tree.
The best solution is to take the bends out of the road, or reduce them.
Surprisingly though this road has never had a reduction in the speed limit from national limit, or speed cameras. Why? It's out in the sticks. Not next to someone's house where a hypothetical child can run out into the road and thus justifies a residential campaign to get speed controls. And yet the number of children run over in the area amounts to less than this one single road has claimed in lives over the last year!
"Just in case we hadn’t got the message, he added: "Nationally 13 per cent of all fatal casualties in 2007 were due to exceeding the speed limit." This figure is rather different from the one quoted by Peter Greenhalgh, the Tory councillor behind the idea, who said annual figures from the Department for Transport published in September showed just six per cent of collisions had been caused by people breaking speed limits."
I gave up reading after this idiotic analysis. If you cannot follow what these figures mean, you shouldn't be writing articles about "fuzzy figures". Hint for you; one is measuring fatalities, the other is measuring collisions. These two things are not the same thing.
And when did The Register become somewhere for heavy-footed petrol heads to moan about speed cameras?
>>"Speed rules need some degree of tolerance and the cameras remove that."
I thought they generally had some amount of tolerance built-in?
Generally speaking, if, rather than cameras, there were actual police doing the speed checks (rather than doing the real police work you'd seemingly think they *should* be doing), they probably wouldn't accept many excuses if they stopped you.
Do you think the tolerance should be just enough to cover how *you* drive, or do you have some other idea of an appropriate level to set the speed enforcement thresholds at?
>>"Speed cameras a intrusive and repressive, they are obviously part of a hidden road tax"
'intrusively hidden obviously' is a novel concept.
Even if you look at speeding fines as a tax rather than the penalty they actually always have been, why *shouldn't* people who can't bring themselves to stay somewhere near the speed limits pay more to use the roads?
The thing for me that makes speed cameras a load of old haddock is that there aren't ANY on normal residential streets, you know the ones, where your kids live, old people, pets, normal people, etc. Every street I've ever lived in, people hoon up and down them, often past small schools and day-care centres, not a speed camera in sight. The little street where I work, people ping up there at 40 and 50 all de day long.
but of course, get out onto a country road where there's feck-all danger of hitting anything other than a rabbit, (A34 anyone?), and all of a sudden it's imperative you do 30 or you're nicked me' old beauty. It's utter balls. It's not about safety, it absolutely can't be when you look at their choice of placement and distribution in any given town. Follow the money...
So here's a question, if you can prove that you were somewhere else when the camera got your plate, (i.e. you're claiming someone must have cloned yours), do you get away with it? If so, let's start up www.speedingalibi.com whereby lots of people in the UK register and stand testimony once a year for some random other dude somewhere else in the country saying something like: "Mr Davies? Speeding in Renfrewshire on Saturday? Couldn't have been, he was with me watching the cricket!" Or somesuch. Or go one further and use CCTV in your home, at your work, shop, blah on any given day, change the date (which is often configurable), hey presto, alibi!
Failing that, how about clear but smokey stickers that go over the lenses of the cameras. They'd take a sec to put in place, be unnoticeable until used and would fuck up any image making them useless. I've often thought about this, do your community a service and get a broom-stick with a little sucker on the end of it, get a clear but foggy sticker of roughly the same proportions as the camera lens and as you walk past the camera, quickly splodge it on. Job jobbed. I'll do my local ones if you want and you do yours. Come on chaps, Battle of Britain Spirit and all that!
>>"Some mentioned before that even according the inflated stats the speeding is only a factor in 13% of crashes."
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme5/excessivespeedcontributor.pdf
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme5/contributoryfactorstoroadacc.pdf
>>"Excessive speed is one of 54 possible contributory factors. It was identified as
contributing to 12 per cent of all accidents and 28 per cent of fatal accidents between
1999 and 2002 where contributory factors were recorded. In the case of fatal
accidents, excessive speed was the most frequently recorded factor."
>>"Why are we not trying to figure out the other 87% and try preventing those."
Of course! Why did no-one ever think of that before?
The police should thinking about doing things like stopping people they see driving erratically who they think might be drunk or stoned, stopping people they see running red lights, pulling people over who are driving while doing distracting things, stopping vehicles that seem dangerously loaded or complete wrecks, and all kinds of other things that they simply never do at the moment.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
