How to reduce the number of journeys made by motor vehicles on UK roads
Posted by: Steve Toy on 22 August 2004
Under UK law, iirc, the police have up to six months to prosecute drivers for motoring offences.
So if the police were to withold all fixed penalty and court summons notices for up to, say, five months and two weeks, drivers would have the opportunity to clock up enough points to be banned from driving before they knew anything.
Then all the police would need to do is install hidden cameras (or those lovely new devices that can detect the speed of vehicles up to two miles away from their location) on stretches of road where drivers were most likely to exceed the limit - along straight stretches of open road or on motorways where traffic is free-flowing.
Within six months approximately 60% of drivers will have lost their licenses so the roads will be free to all those drivers who never break the law.
Law-abiding drivers would have nothing to lose from this covert operation, the air would be cleaner, there would be fewer accidents, and more people would use public transport.
We all know that Speed Kills, so by removing all speeding motorists we'd keep Death off Our Roads.
A great idea don't you think chaps?
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Mon 23 August 2004 at 5:32.]
So if the police were to withold all fixed penalty and court summons notices for up to, say, five months and two weeks, drivers would have the opportunity to clock up enough points to be banned from driving before they knew anything.
Then all the police would need to do is install hidden cameras (or those lovely new devices that can detect the speed of vehicles up to two miles away from their location) on stretches of road where drivers were most likely to exceed the limit - along straight stretches of open road or on motorways where traffic is free-flowing.
Within six months approximately 60% of drivers will have lost their licenses so the roads will be free to all those drivers who never break the law.
Law-abiding drivers would have nothing to lose from this covert operation, the air would be cleaner, there would be fewer accidents, and more people would use public transport.
We all know that Speed Kills, so by removing all speeding motorists we'd keep Death off Our Roads.
A great idea don't you think chaps?
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Mon 23 August 2004 at 5:32.]
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by matthewr
"A typically pinko absurdam"
Deliberately absurd in response to what I felt was an absurd point -- that something that requires you to check your speed and slow down is dangerous becuase it requires you to check something you should be aware of and acitvely monitoring anyway. It's like arguing that looking in the mirror is dangerous becuase it means you are not looking ahead.
"So the instinctive reaction on seeing a speed camera or 'Talivan' is to jump on the brakes, check the speedo, then look around for other danger. This is human nature and there's no point bewailing it"
Anyone who slams on the brakes and then "look around for danger" when they see a speed camera is a bad driver full stop. How can they possibly be expected to cope with a genuine ermgencey if they cannot cope with a large prominently displayed yellow box? Or even road sings for that matter.
Matthew
Deliberately absurd in response to what I felt was an absurd point -- that something that requires you to check your speed and slow down is dangerous becuase it requires you to check something you should be aware of and acitvely monitoring anyway. It's like arguing that looking in the mirror is dangerous becuase it means you are not looking ahead.
"So the instinctive reaction on seeing a speed camera or 'Talivan' is to jump on the brakes, check the speedo, then look around for other danger. This is human nature and there's no point bewailing it"
Anyone who slams on the brakes and then "look around for danger" when they see a speed camera is a bad driver full stop. How can they possibly be expected to cope with a genuine ermgencey if they cannot cope with a large prominently displayed yellow box? Or even road sings for that matter.
Matthew
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by John Sheridan
quote:
"and driving to close to the vehicle in front"
Which is of course a function of speed. And it's a lot easier to control
people's speed than driving distances.
It's not a function of speed at all. If I'm driving an inch from your rear
bumper I can't be going any faster than you are so how is any sort of speed
enforcement going to change this?
quote:
For a start I think a lot of the problem is this idea that everyone
believes
that accidents are caused by "bad drivers" who are a group entirely separate
from you and me.
I'd argue 'bad driving practices' rather than just 'bad drivers' - and that
means anyone can lapse into these if they're not careful. That said, I'm
sure there's a group of drivers out there who have caused more than their
fair share of accidents.
quote:
Secondly most of the time when we do something in a car there isn't an
accident and, as we do this sort of thing every day without any negative
conseuqences, we conclude it is safe.
well that would be a bad driving practice. You should, of course, be asking
yourself what are the possible consequences of your actions. So, if I
somehow successfully manage to drive at 60mph past the local primary school
100 times I shouldn't presume it's safe because I haven't run over a child,
I should consider what would happen if a child runs in front of me - and
then drive accordingly.
Also, when I talk of better training I'm not talking about turning everyone
on the road into Michael Schumacher ( or heaven forbid, Jenson Button), nor
do they need to be, I'm talking about increased vision and awareness. Just
think about this next time you're crossing the road: it is quite common for
people to take their eyes of the road for 3 seconds (whether to answer the
phone, change radio stations, talk to the kids or whatever) but, from
personal observation, they tend to drive about 1 second away from the car in
front - which also seems to be about the maximum distance many drivers look
ahead.
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by Steve Toy
quote:
1) If one accepts that speed limits have some benefical effect then arguning against their enforcement is patently wrong. Instead one should argue that the speed limits should be set at different levels and then enforced at that level.
I agree - except that the safe limit will vary enormously depending on the conditions. In Germany electronic signs can impose (lower) mandatory speed limits in bad weather or dense traffic. If we adopted the same approach here I'd find no fault whatsoever in your reasoning.
Thus you could raise the motorway limit to, say, 90mph (as they did in Italy at the start of this year on three-lane motorways) but in the event of fog, snow, torrential rain, or dense traffic a mandatory limit of between 40 and 70mph could be imposed electronically. Also, in dense traffic a temporary no-overtaking restriction for lorries could also be imposed as is also the case in Germany.
quote:
If, as is often quoted, speed has little ro no effect on most accidents, this should be an easy argument to win when backed with appropriate research.
The government currently has a financial interest in not conducting such research.
quote:
2) If the police are doing all this for the reasons of revenue generation, where is the money? I'd like to see some research into how much money is raised, where it goes, etc. I'm sure it's not going in the police pension fund so presumably it does some good somewhere?
(If it means we have more community policing in the estate behind my house, or more beds in my local hospital, etc. then frankly I say it's a good idea at least in principle even if it's safety effect is only marginal).
So you think that revenue raising is the primary purpose behind automated speed enforcement when the government swear that it is not about revenue but about safety?
Well, unlike the government, at least you are being honest about it. I'd be more than happy to vote for someone like you who has the honesty and integrity that this government so sorely lacks. However, the government know that if they openly admitted that speed enforcement was primarily about revenue raising they'd lose a lot of votes.
The revenue from speed cameras and Talivans is the equivalent of adding 1.5p to a litre of fuel - this at least would be a more legitimate and transparent method of raising revenue, although civil unrest would be a likely outcome given the current high cost of oil.
quote:
4) Once again we have a 100% incidence of responsible, careful drivers who are capable of exceeded the speed limits safely in the correct circumstances. Where are the people causing the accidents? Are they a different set of people entirely or are they, as I suspect, the sort of people who htink they are responsible, safe drivers capable of exceeding the speed limits when conditions permit?
It may be hard to believe, but yes it is an entirely different set of people. Those involved in speed-related accidents are usually young, irresponsible and inexperienced drivers. Often these drivers are under the influence of drink or drugs and/or their vehicles are unroadworthy. Moreover they are not exceeding posted limits by a mere 5 to 10 mph either. I routinely see the likes of Mr Souped-Up-Citroen Saxo-with-his-front-fog-lamps-blazing doing well over 60mph in 30 zones. When I see him coming up behind me I just get out of the way!
quote:
6) I don't have the figures to hand but I beleive that some 4-5000 people die on British roads every year. If that many people died on, say, the railways think how much fuss there would be and how much inconvenience people would endure in order to get that figure down by many orders of magnitude.
The death toll on UK roads for 2003 is 3500 - the same as for 1994. This clearly demonstrates that the policy of automated speed enforcement accompanied by lowered speed limits is but an effective method of raising revenue. The figure is truly appalling and something should be done about it...
We need to place road safety higher up the list of priorities than revenue raising and try a different approach that will actually work. Unfortunately re-designing our roads and junctions wher collisions take place,or sending out more police patrol cars to monitor Mr Boy Racer isn't profitable in financial terms.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by Paul Ranson
quote:
Anyone who slams on the brakes and then "look around for danger" when they see a speed camera is a bad driver full stop. How can they possibly be expected to cope with a genuine ermgencey if they cannot cope with a large prominently displayed yellow box? Or even road sings for that matter.
So given that we have many bad drivers not getting caught by speed cameras but increasing the levels of danger on the road, what do you suggest to improve road safety?
And something does need to be done, the trend in road deaths is turning up after many years of decrease.
Paul
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by Steve Toy
quote:
Anyone who slams on the brakes and then "look around for danger" when they see a speed camera is a bad driver full stop. How can they possibly be expected to cope with a genuine ermgencey if they cannot cope with a large prominently displayed yellow box? Or even road sings for that matter.
The prominantly displayed yellow boxes are fine as they are in fixed locations. Talivans are a different matter and quite often by the time you've spotted one your speed has already been detected. I know of many people (myself included on the odd occasion) who automatically apply their brakes upon spotting a Talivan even though they are already driving below the speed limit!
As human beings we have but a finite attention span. Overloading our span of attention with other hazards to look out for in addition to pedestrians, other vehicles, and normal street furniture is not helping the safety cause one bit. These additional hazards appearing on our roads include speed cameras, Talivans, traffic islands with tall glowing lollipops in the middle of them that just serve as more objects to collide with, chicanes defended by lethal cast iron posts - and not flexible plasic ones because drivers must pay a very Heavy Penalty for failing to negotiate one these.
Putting more obstacles in the path of drivers doesn't make for safer roads.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by matthewr
"It's not a function of speed at all"
Yes it is -- if everyone is going slower the tailgating is less likely to cause an accident. Hence if speed enforcement reduces speed it makes this de facto bad driving practices safer.
"I'm sure there's a group of drivers out there who have caused more than their fair share of accidents."
That should be easy enough to demonstrate from insurance statistics. But I am not convinced it would stand up. I think most drivers actually drive reasonably well most of the time and in fact most accidents are caused by honest mistakes by otherwise competant drivers.
steven Toy said "The government currently has a financial interest in not conducting such research"
And various pressure groups like the AA have the oppositie inclinatoin.
That hardly prevents anyone else from doing such research though and I am fairly sure that such research happens routinely.
"So you think that revenue raising is the primary purpose behind automated speed enforcement"
No. I am saying that there is little justification for it if it doesn't improve safety but that if it only has a marginal effect then you might well be in favour becuase of its positive revenue effects.
"I know of many people (myself included on the odd occasion) who automatically apply their brakes upon spotting a Talivan even though they are already driving below the speed limit!"
And I maintain that this is bad driving and not the fault of a Talivan.
Paul said "what do you suggest to improve road safety?"
Primarily, rather like defensive driving, I think you need to design the system (in the broadest sense) so that accidents are less likely even when people drive badly. I don't disagree with many of the suggestions in this thread.
Where I do differ, I think, is that I don't have this overriding objection to speed cameras and enforcement that some seem to have. For sure they might not help as much as is claimed but I find the idea that we should spend so much effort jumping through hoops trying to prove they have the opposite effect more than somewhat perverse.
Matthew
Yes it is -- if everyone is going slower the tailgating is less likely to cause an accident. Hence if speed enforcement reduces speed it makes this de facto bad driving practices safer.
"I'm sure there's a group of drivers out there who have caused more than their fair share of accidents."
That should be easy enough to demonstrate from insurance statistics. But I am not convinced it would stand up. I think most drivers actually drive reasonably well most of the time and in fact most accidents are caused by honest mistakes by otherwise competant drivers.
steven Toy said "The government currently has a financial interest in not conducting such research"
And various pressure groups like the AA have the oppositie inclinatoin.
That hardly prevents anyone else from doing such research though and I am fairly sure that such research happens routinely.
"So you think that revenue raising is the primary purpose behind automated speed enforcement"
No. I am saying that there is little justification for it if it doesn't improve safety but that if it only has a marginal effect then you might well be in favour becuase of its positive revenue effects.
"I know of many people (myself included on the odd occasion) who automatically apply their brakes upon spotting a Talivan even though they are already driving below the speed limit!"
And I maintain that this is bad driving and not the fault of a Talivan.
Paul said "what do you suggest to improve road safety?"
Primarily, rather like defensive driving, I think you need to design the system (in the broadest sense) so that accidents are less likely even when people drive badly. I don't disagree with many of the suggestions in this thread.
Where I do differ, I think, is that I don't have this overriding objection to speed cameras and enforcement that some seem to have. For sure they might not help as much as is claimed but I find the idea that we should spend so much effort jumping through hoops trying to prove they have the opposite effect more than somewhat perverse.
Matthew
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by Steve Toy
quote:
No. I am saying that there is little justification for it if it doesn't improve safety but that if it only has a marginal effect then you might well be in favour becuase of its positive revenue effects.
What if this effect isn't even marginal? What if the effect is at best nada and at worst counterproductive?
3500 deaths in 1994 - before the widespread use of automated speed enforcement, 3500 deaths in 2003 - after the widespread implementation thereof, against a hitherto falling trend in road deaths since 1965.
quote:
"I know of many people (myself included on the odd occasion) who automatically apply their brakes upon spotting a Talivan even though they are already driving below the speed limit!"
And I maintain that this is bad driving and not the fault of a Talivan.
You can't keep attributing all the blame for accidents to the drivers when there may be an additional and counterproductive contributing factor.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by matthewr
"3500 deaths in 1994 - before the widespread use of automated speed enforcement, 3500 deaths in 2003 - after the widespread implementation thereof, against a hitherto falling trend in road deaths since 1965"
Tells us absolutely nothing about the effect of speed cameras on safety.
"You can't keep attributing all the blame for accidents to the drivers when there may be an additional and counterproductive contributing factor"
I'm not. I am saying that people who brake instinctively when seeing a speed camera are, in that instance, driving badly.
Matthew
Tells us absolutely nothing about the effect of speed cameras on safety.
"You can't keep attributing all the blame for accidents to the drivers when there may be an additional and counterproductive contributing factor"
I'm not. I am saying that people who brake instinctively when seeing a speed camera are, in that instance, driving badly.
Matthew
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by Paul Ranson
quote:
I'm not. I am saying that people who brake instinctively when seeing a speed camera are, in that instance, driving badly.
This is obviously true. But it's an example of government road policy encouraging bad driving.
I object to speed limits on principle. It makes no sense to require people to judge their speed against conditions when conditions are poor, yet penalize them for doing so when conditions are good. A speed limit has no moral force other than as a guideline. They are completely arbitrary numbers that are chosen because they are convenient numbers of mph.
I further object to robotic enforcement of arbitrary rules. Unless applied to cyclists of course.
Paul
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by Martin D
http://motoring.independent.co.uk/comment/story.jsp?story=554388
Mark McArthur-Christie: Speed cameras - simple, neat... and wrong
24 August 2004
In 1901 Richard Moffat Ford became the first person in the UK to fall victim to a speed trap. It was nothing more technologically advanced than a constable hiding in a hedge with a stopwatch. Today camera partnerships can call on fixed speed cameras, mobile speed cameras and even cameras that measure your average speed and issue a ticket automatically. The chief constable for North Wales upped the stakes for drivers last week when he called for cameras to be sited on all roads in the UK - not just those with a history of accidents.
Actually, this is a little disingenuous of Mr Brunstrom. It's happening already by default. According to Home Office guidelines, cameras can be used up to 5km away from accident sites. Also, the accidents concerned do not need to have speed as a factor; they can have been caused by a blind junction, a slippery road or simply plain old driver inattention. Perhaps this explains why many straight, clear sections of road are now home to a camera.
Back in 1992, when cameras were introduced, they caught a mere 290 speeding drivers. By the end of 1997, the UK's 1,300-strong camera network pushed that to 390,000. In 2002, more than 1,630,000 drivers saw the unmistakable double flash in their mirrors and heard the thud of a thick manila envelope hitting the doormat. Around 20 per cent of the driving public now have speeding points on their licences. But road deaths are up. Last year, despite millions spent on Kill Your Speed cameras, lower limits and tougher enforcement, road deaths increased by 2 per cent.
Why is Mr Brunstrom's hardline speed-enforcement policy not working? For the same reasons that the "speed kills" policy underlying it has not worked. It makes three dangerous assumptions, none of which is backed by fact. The first leap is that exceeding speed limits causes crashes; the second is that adhering to a posted speed limit will stop drivers crashing; the third is that enforcing those speed limits absolutely will reduce deaths.
Speed is certainly a simple enough issue to address superficially. Put up cameras, paint them whatever colour you like, raise fines, put in new blanket speed limits and propose stiff new penalties for exceeding them, then watch the accident figures tumble. Sadly, as we have seen, they are not falling.
HL Mencken said: "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." Speed cameras are a simple solution to a hugely complex problem. They completely fail to differentiate between exceeding a speed limit and an inappropriate speed for the conditions. They take no account of observation, anticipation, hazard management or driving skill and reduce road safety to a sort of mindless "driving by numbers".
Of course, we are required to observe speed limits at all times, but is there any physical law that makes 30mph safe and 35mph deadly? Yes - one can stop quicker if one is driving slower; assuming good brakes, quick reactions, good tyres and... but there we go already, adding caveats to what is supposed to be an absolute and simple rule. Is it really that simple?
Speed cameras, traffic calming and lowered speed limits encourage the majority of drivers to think that it's easy - by sticking to a limit they are safe - when nothing could be further from the truth. Poor drivers driving slowly crash at lower speeds - but they still crash and they still kill people. Do we believe this is acceptable?
We need to refocus the road safety debate away from speed limits and on to the much more complex and politically unpalatable subject of driver standards, education and training. It's only when we recognise how complex the driving process is and educate all road users accordingly that we'll start to reduce crashes.
The writer is Road Safety Spokesman for the Association of British Drivers
Mark McArthur-Christie: Speed cameras - simple, neat... and wrong
24 August 2004
In 1901 Richard Moffat Ford became the first person in the UK to fall victim to a speed trap. It was nothing more technologically advanced than a constable hiding in a hedge with a stopwatch. Today camera partnerships can call on fixed speed cameras, mobile speed cameras and even cameras that measure your average speed and issue a ticket automatically. The chief constable for North Wales upped the stakes for drivers last week when he called for cameras to be sited on all roads in the UK - not just those with a history of accidents.
Actually, this is a little disingenuous of Mr Brunstrom. It's happening already by default. According to Home Office guidelines, cameras can be used up to 5km away from accident sites. Also, the accidents concerned do not need to have speed as a factor; they can have been caused by a blind junction, a slippery road or simply plain old driver inattention. Perhaps this explains why many straight, clear sections of road are now home to a camera.
Back in 1992, when cameras were introduced, they caught a mere 290 speeding drivers. By the end of 1997, the UK's 1,300-strong camera network pushed that to 390,000. In 2002, more than 1,630,000 drivers saw the unmistakable double flash in their mirrors and heard the thud of a thick manila envelope hitting the doormat. Around 20 per cent of the driving public now have speeding points on their licences. But road deaths are up. Last year, despite millions spent on Kill Your Speed cameras, lower limits and tougher enforcement, road deaths increased by 2 per cent.
Why is Mr Brunstrom's hardline speed-enforcement policy not working? For the same reasons that the "speed kills" policy underlying it has not worked. It makes three dangerous assumptions, none of which is backed by fact. The first leap is that exceeding speed limits causes crashes; the second is that adhering to a posted speed limit will stop drivers crashing; the third is that enforcing those speed limits absolutely will reduce deaths.
Speed is certainly a simple enough issue to address superficially. Put up cameras, paint them whatever colour you like, raise fines, put in new blanket speed limits and propose stiff new penalties for exceeding them, then watch the accident figures tumble. Sadly, as we have seen, they are not falling.
HL Mencken said: "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." Speed cameras are a simple solution to a hugely complex problem. They completely fail to differentiate between exceeding a speed limit and an inappropriate speed for the conditions. They take no account of observation, anticipation, hazard management or driving skill and reduce road safety to a sort of mindless "driving by numbers".
Of course, we are required to observe speed limits at all times, but is there any physical law that makes 30mph safe and 35mph deadly? Yes - one can stop quicker if one is driving slower; assuming good brakes, quick reactions, good tyres and... but there we go already, adding caveats to what is supposed to be an absolute and simple rule. Is it really that simple?
Speed cameras, traffic calming and lowered speed limits encourage the majority of drivers to think that it's easy - by sticking to a limit they are safe - when nothing could be further from the truth. Poor drivers driving slowly crash at lower speeds - but they still crash and they still kill people. Do we believe this is acceptable?
We need to refocus the road safety debate away from speed limits and on to the much more complex and politically unpalatable subject of driver standards, education and training. It's only when we recognise how complex the driving process is and educate all road users accordingly that we'll start to reduce crashes.
The writer is Road Safety Spokesman for the Association of British Drivers
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by matthewr
Martin,
Your article is written by a simpleton who does not understand basic science and is guilty of exactly the sort of inductivist thinking that is sadly all too common in this debate.
Although that should come as no surprise when we learn that he is a spokesman for the Association of British Drivers who are sort of the paramilitary wing of the AA and lie about their membership.
Matthew
Your article is written by a simpleton who does not understand basic science and is guilty of exactly the sort of inductivist thinking that is sadly all too common in this debate.
Although that should come as no surprise when we learn that he is a spokesman for the Association of British Drivers who are sort of the paramilitary wing of the AA and lie about their membership.
Matthew
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by John Sheridan
quote:
Your article is written by a simpleton who does not understand basic science and is guilty of exactly the sort of inductivist thinking that is sadly all too common in this debate.
so which bit of the article do you disagree with? It sounds like common sense to me.
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by andy c
quote:
I object to speed limits on principle. It makes no sense to require people to judge their speed against conditions when conditions are poor, yet penalize them for doing so when conditions are good. A speed limit has no moral force other than as a guideline. They are completely arbitrary numbers that are chosen because they are convenient numbers of mph.
Don't agree. There needs to be a standard of driving set that all know about and conform to. It is a condition of being allowed on the roads in a vehicle, and does not contravene human rights. There is one standard for all, and this is set in statute.
In addition to this there are charging standards used by enforcement agencies re offences committed which take into account the above factors. Speed camera's do not take into account the factors you mention. you either speed or you don't, according to the camera.
You either need to get your money out and pay for better law enforcement (e.g. More Traffic Cops) or accept the consequences. Some drivers think they are brill, and I'd like to see random re-testing of drivers to confirm their thoughts!
The fact that one takes a test ages ago, and then is not re-assessed at all for many years amazes me.
I'll get me coat...
andy c!
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by Martin D
Mathew, below are the facts not emotive language. Given these facts where should we put most resource to achieve the biggest improvement in safety, which we all want.
The top 7 contributory factors were:
Inattention: 25.8%
Failure to judge other person's path or speed: 22.6%
Looked but did not see: 19.7%
Behaviour: careless/thoughtless/reckless: 18.4%
Failed to look: 16.3%
Lack of judgement of own path: 13.7%
Excessive speed: 12.5%
The top 7 contributory factors were:
Inattention: 25.8%
Failure to judge other person's path or speed: 22.6%
Looked but did not see: 19.7%
Behaviour: careless/thoughtless/reckless: 18.4%
Failed to look: 16.3%
Lack of judgement of own path: 13.7%
Excessive speed: 12.5%
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by Mick P
I passed my test in 1969 and have never had an accident or made an insurance claim in my life.
Despite my impeccable record, I will suggest that all motorists should be tested every 5 years.
None of us are good drivers, we think we are but.....we ain't.
Regards
Mick
Despite my impeccable record, I will suggest that all motorists should be tested every 5 years.
None of us are good drivers, we think we are but.....we ain't.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by matthewr
"so which bit of the article do you disagree with?"
The basic premise that the increase in road deaths means speed cameras and the associated policy are not working is obviously flawed. Without that the rest of it rather falls apart.
Martin -- If you want to get into the science of it (an approach I fully endorse) then we need to see proper refernces and links to the approparite peer-reviewed material. There will be a bunch of stuff out there (indeed I recall one from not long ago that claimed cameras reduced deaths) and one needs to looks at an arrray of such material to form a reasonable conlusion.
I must admit I do find it slightly mystifying that there isn't more research that would rather settle the debate in short order. No doubt Steven will tell us that Blair's goons have assaninated any academics working on this sort of stuff to protect this valuable source of Government income.
Matthew
The basic premise that the increase in road deaths means speed cameras and the associated policy are not working is obviously flawed. Without that the rest of it rather falls apart.
Martin -- If you want to get into the science of it (an approach I fully endorse) then we need to see proper refernces and links to the approparite peer-reviewed material. There will be a bunch of stuff out there (indeed I recall one from not long ago that claimed cameras reduced deaths) and one needs to looks at an arrray of such material to form a reasonable conlusion.
I must admit I do find it slightly mystifying that there isn't more research that would rather settle the debate in short order. No doubt Steven will tell us that Blair's goons have assaninated any academics working on this sort of stuff to protect this valuable source of Government income.
Matthew
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by John Sheridan
quote:
Looked but did not see: 19.7%
eyetests would be a good start. So many cyclists have heard this excuse it's now just referred to as SMBIDSY (sorry mate but I didn't see you). It's actually a real condition (can't remember all the medical/psychological details) but there's a simple cure - focus on something else (your destination is usually a good place to look) and then take a second look.
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by John Sheridan
quote:
The basic premise that the increase in road deaths means speed cameras and the associated policy are not working is obviously flawed. Without that the rest of it rather falls apart.
well if deaths were falling steadily until they were introduced and then plateaued/increased after they were introduced would you like to suggest another reason?
quote:
(indeed I recall one from not long ago that claimed cameras reduced deaths) and one needs to looks at an arrray of such material to form a reasonable conlusion.
you mean the sort that say there was a fatality at this point the year before a camera was installed and no fatality the year after so therefore cameras reduce deaths?
quote:
I must admit I do find it slightly mystifying that there isn't more research that would rather settle the debate in short order.
do you really believe after years of pushing the 'speed kills' line and everything that goes with it that the government is going to turn around and say 'oops, we got it wrong'?
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by matthewr
"well if deaths were falling steadily until they were introduced and then plateaued/increased after they were introduced would you like to suggest another reason?"
The point is that his article might with equal validity claim the increase in deaths is due to, say, a rise in cars with air conditioning. At best it's just plain old inductivism but really it doesn't say anything of worth.
"do you really believe after years of pushing the 'speed kills' line and everything that goes with it that the government is going to turn around and say 'oops, we got it wrong'?"
Well they wouldn't have much choice if someone produced some research that could be used to support or attack the policy.
Don't some of Dr Mekon's colleagues do this sort of thing?
Matthew
The point is that his article might with equal validity claim the increase in deaths is due to, say, a rise in cars with air conditioning. At best it's just plain old inductivism but really it doesn't say anything of worth.
"do you really believe after years of pushing the 'speed kills' line and everything that goes with it that the government is going to turn around and say 'oops, we got it wrong'?"
Well they wouldn't have much choice if someone produced some research that could be used to support or attack the policy.
Don't some of Dr Mekon's colleagues do this sort of thing?
Matthew
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by Paul Ranson
Over the last few years, as robotic and civilian operated speed enforcement has become ever more intense,
Traffic police manpower has been reduced.
Drink drive related accidents have increased.
Overall road deaths have increased.
I think these three are all facts.
It would be hard to prove in the short term any causal relation between the anti-speed bandwagon and the three facts but if I were a politician or senior policeman with any concern for making the roads safer I think I'd not be calling for ever more speed cameras. I might even start driving myself around a bit to get a feel for what's happening.
Paul
Traffic police manpower has been reduced.
Drink drive related accidents have increased.
Overall road deaths have increased.
I think these three are all facts.
It would be hard to prove in the short term any causal relation between the anti-speed bandwagon and the three facts but if I were a politician or senior policeman with any concern for making the roads safer I think I'd not be calling for ever more speed cameras. I might even start driving myself around a bit to get a feel for what's happening.
Paul
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by John Sheridan
quote:
I think you may be confusing a car pulling in front of another with the act of deliberatly driving to closely: If a driver were to pull out in front of another vehicle, the other driver is not immediately responsible for the situatuion, but should still back off to maintain safe distance. It will become tailgating if he chooses not to. This is an entirely different situation from the more common scenario where a car is already overtaking another (or a line of cars) and some prat comes right up to you because he wants you to go faster or get out of the way (even though it may not be safe to do so).
Please, I know what tailgating is and I'm not confused about the difference. Reread what the highway code says regarding overtaking. Specifically: "Do not overtake unless it is safe to do so. Make sure the lane BEHIND is sufficiently clear." This 'common' scenario of the 'prat' coming right up to you because he wants you to go faster occurs due to poor lane discipline. The idea is to NOT pull in front of the 'prat' coming up behind you but to WAIT for him to go by before you execute your overtake if there's not enough time to complete your overtake before he catches you. Heaven forbid that you may have to ease off a little to let him by. For an extreme example of the problems 'your way' of doing things causes consider this: I was once in a line of 5 cars travelling along at 110km/h on a 2 lane highway when someone decided he didn't want to be doing 40km/h behind a truck going up a hill. Using your logic he was probably bitching all the way to Canberra about those 5 maniacs driving right up behind him. All I can say was that he was damn lucky we'd all left appropriate gaps. I'm still not sure how the 1st guy missed him. Nothing like an emergency stop on highway to get the pulse rate going.
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by Steve Toy
quote:
No doubt Steven will tell us that Blair's goons have assaninated any academics working on this sort of stuff to protect this valuable source of Government income.
Not quite, but they won't be receiving any National Lottery grants either - too many other pet schemes much further up the list...
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by Steve Toy
quote:
I was once in a line of 5 cars travelling along at 110km/h on a 2 lane highway when someone decided he didn't want to be doing 40km/h behind a truck going up a hill. Using your logic he was probably bitching all the way to Canberra about those 5 maniacs driving right up behind him. All I can say was that he was damn lucky we'd all left appropriate gaps. I'm still not sure how the 1st guy missed him. Nothing like an emergency stop on highway to get the pulse rate going.
Getting boxed in behind a truck is PITA but shit happens; you wait until every vehicle in the fast lane has gone past as well as those behind you in your lane who've pulled out.
The answer is not to get too close to the truck before deciding it's time to pull out. On my return journey to Liverpool I fell into this trap just once as mentioned above. It was my fault and my penance was patiently waiting before pulling out safely without cutting anyone up.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 25 August 2004 by Nigel Cavendish
quote:
This 'common' scenario of the 'prat' coming right up to you because he wants you to go faster occurs due to poor lane discipline. The idea is to NOT pull in front of the 'prat' coming up behind you but to WAIT for him to go by before you execute your overtake if there's not enough time to complete your overtake before he catches you.
The more common scenario is that someone pulls out to overtake when the road behind is clear; he/she is overtaking at or about the speed limit when someone (you?) doing 30 mph more inevitably catch up and then remain glued to his/her bumper. In that situation you are at fault; you should back off until the first driver has completed the overtake.
cheers
Nigel
Posted on: 25 August 2004 by HTK
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Toy:
Getting boxed in behind a truck is PITA but shit happens; you wait until every vehicle in the fast lane has gone past as well as those behind you in your lane who've pulled out.
The answer is not to get too close to the truck before deciding it's time to pull out.
Steve.
Quite so. But it's human nature isn't it? These idiots expect you to do their driving for them and they believe that anticipation and easing off if necessary only happens to other people. It's also likely that having got boxed in because they can't read the road is justification for sticking rigidly to the middle lane for the next 50 miles. We all make mistakes, but some of us dont THINK and many more just don#t seem to care.
Cheers
Harry