Diane Abbott on the speedophiles.

[Stevie D]

Tony Raven wrote:

> Speed, doesn't kill, no.

Irrelevant Comparisons R Us.

The vast majority of speeding drivers are not hurtling around blind
bends at over 100mph. That is clear lunacy, which is why most people
don't do it.

The vast majority of speeding drivers are going 10, maybe 20mph, over
the speed limit where they can see that the road ahead is clear. Had
the police driver in your ridiculous extreme example been doing that,
he would not have crashed.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

 

[Mark Thompson]

>> How will raising limits increase safety?
>
> It will give back ownership of safe driving to the drivers, who will
> in turn take more responsibility for their speed and safety.

I doubt it. I would hazard a guess that average speeds and KSI rates would
rise. Average speeds may fall in areas subject to more congestion thobut.

> In East Anglia, there was a determined policy of removing road
> markings and signage from country lanes, and accident rates fell as
> drivers realised that they could not rely on signs and limits but
> instead had to use their own observational skills.

From country lanes? Interesting. Do you have any references?

> In some parts of Europe (Netherlands?), many urban areas have very
> little in the way of road markings or hazard/restriction signage.
> Drivers have to rely on their own observational skills to determine
> what is safe and sensible, and accident rates have fallen.

This is not speed limits.

> On some urban arterial roads (sorry, no idea where. North London?), a
> blatantly unrealistic 30mph limit was raised to 40mph, and average
> traffic speeds fell. Drivers recognised that the speed limit was
> appropriate to the road, and obeyed it - where the limit was clearly
> not appropriate, drivers had no compunction in breaking it.

So when they raised the limit, drivers drove slower than before? This *is*
interesting. Any further links? Sounds like other factors are involved.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> Similarly, driving on a
> deserted street at 40mph while sober and paying full attention is not
> likely to result in an accident.

You can do this under the current system too. They paint both police cars
and cameras bright colours to make you more likely to see them even when
not paying full attention.

 

[spindrift]

Stevie D wrote:
> Mark Thompson wrote:
>
> > How will raising limits increase safety?
>
> It will give back ownership of safe driving to the drivers, who will
> in turn take more responsibility for their speed and safety.
>
> We have seen this happen over and over, in this country and abroad,
> yet some people still refuse to believe it.
>
> In East Anglia, there was a determined policy of removing road
> markings and signage from country lanes, and accident rates fell as
> drivers realised that they could not rely on signs and limits but
> instead had to use their own observational skills.
>
> In some parts of Europe (Netherlands?), many urban areas have very
> little in the way of road markings or hazard/restriction signage.
> Drivers have to rely on their own observational skills to determine
> what is safe and sensible, and accident rates have fallen.
>
> On some urban arterial roads (sorry, no idea where. North London?), a
> blatantly unrealistic 30mph limit was raised to 40mph, and average
> traffic speeds fell. Drivers recognised that the speed limit was
> appropriate to the road, and obeyed it - where the limit was clearly
> not appropriate, drivers had no compunction in breaking it.
>
> --
> Stevie D
> \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
> \\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
> ___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________


The Netherlands have the excellent assumed liability law so drivers pay
out in a collision with a pedestrian or cyclist. Cars in dam rarely go
above 20 mph in the centre, exactly as it should be, a safe, quiet
environment.

 

[Stevie D]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:

> Will Cove wrote:
>
>> You really are pro dangerous driving.
>
> I'm certain that he isn't.

I agree that Simon is not setting out to make the roads more
dangerous. Unfortunately, I am equally convinced that he doesn't know
enough about (a) good driving, and (b) human psychology, to be aware
that that is the precise effect that his proposals would have.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

 

[Stevie D]

Rob Morley wrote:

> I think he's saying that if he'd been travelling faster the idiots who
> drove in the back of him wouldn't have, but the logical extension of
> this is that everyone should drive so fast that nobody can catch them.

It's not hard to see why the press hype up stories about "Lycra
Loonies" when you see the incoherent frothing at the mouth that goes
on here every time someone mentions speed limits.

Will is not saying he would have been safer if he had been going
faster. The fact is that the speed limit played precisely zero role in
the accidents he was involved in. The following drivers were too close
and paying too little attention - neither of which are in any way
related to the speed they were driving at.

There was a thread started here last week entitled "How fast have you
been..." in which cyclists were bragging about how fast they had
ridden. I know that cyclists can't be prosecuted for speeding, but
they can be prosecuted for dangerous or reckless cycling if they are
going too fast. I don't know whether any of the vMax claims made in
that thread would fit the bill of "going too fast", but I'm sure there
are people here who do ride much faster than it is safe, especially
through busy urban areas.

When we're on two wheels, there is no speed limit, but we're not
allowed to go faster than is safe. Why can't we have the same rule for
motorists as well?

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

 

[Stevie D]

[email protected] wrote:

> So are you in favour of more speed cameras and more traffic police ?

I am certainly in favour of more traffic police.

I am tentatively in favour of speed cameras in specific targeted
locations, such as on an otherwise good road where there is a need to
slow down that may not be fully appreciated by all drivers - eg a
school, a side turning with limited visibility. But that should only
be a last resort - it would be better to re-engineer the road so that
drivers instinctively drive at an appropriate speed.
That might, in some cases, mean better alignments or visibility so
that the higher speed becomes safe - it would, in other cases, mean
pedestrian crossings, constrictions on the road [1], (mini)roundabouts
and other features to encourage drivers to slow down.

[1] Needs a lot of care in the design, so that they don't impinge on
the safety of cyclists.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

 

[Stevie D]

Marc Brett wrote:

> ********. If you are being tailgated the safe response is to slow down and
> increase the distance between you and the car in front, so as to allow for slow
> deceleration and less chance of a rear-end collision, and also make for an
> easier passing opportunity for the tailgating tw*nt.

Absolutely agreed. I know that there may be times when I need to brake
unexpectedly, and the last thing I want to worry about is the idiot
behind me being too close to stop.

Yes, the first course of action is to increase the gap in front of me.
If he is still too close for comfort, I will slow down.

But that is addressing the wrong problem! The danger does not come
from me driving at 60, 70 or 80mph if the road is fine for that speed.
The danger comes from the driver behind who leaves too small a gap -
which he can (and will) do at, above and below the speed limit a/o
safe speed for the road.

Yet again, I have to slow down, when my speed was not a problem, to
compensate for the stupidity of other drivers.

Can anyone see the link with speed cameras here?

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

 

[Stevie D]

Marc Brett wrote:

> Whose fault would it have been if it weren't a cyclist, but, say, a
> child chasing a ball or a large specimen of wildlife leaping into your
> path? Yours, entirely.

No, the primary fault still lies with the following driver.

Will did manage to stop before hitting the hazard (cyclist, child,
deer, whatever you like). He was driving within his capabilities.

The following driver failed to stop before hitting the hazard (the car
in front). He was not driving within his capabilities.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

 

[Mark Thompson]

> When we're on two wheels, there is no speed limit, but we're not
> allowed to go faster than is safe. Why can't we have the same rule for
> motorists as well?

Thousands and thousands of dead people.

 

[Stevie D]

Rob Morley wrote:

> A speed camera is best used where it will deter the most motorists
> from speeding. If 85% of drivers are speeding there is obviously a
> need for a deterrent.

There's one huge false assumption there, and that is that - at that
location - there is any danger posed by breaking the speed limit.

A speed camera is best used where it will *prevent the most accidents*
- full stop. I don't care about whether or not drivers are exceeding
an arbitrary number stuck on a pole - I do care about whether they are
driving safely or whether they are likely to crash.

If 85% of drivers at a particular point are breaking the speed limit,
the most logical conclusion is that there is no great intrinsic danger
from breaking the speed limit at that point. If six drivers out of
every seven are driving so dangerously fast that automatic enforcement
is necessary, there will be continual and permanent carnage on that
road. I've never yet seen a road where that is the case.

If a smaller proportion of drivers on a road are breaking the speed
limit, that suggests that most drivers have recognised that it is not
safe to go faster than that [1]. In that case, the few drivers that do
break the limit are much more likely to be driving dangerously fast,
so it is far more important to discourage them from doing so, and to
penalise them if they continue to do so.

> It's not a question of danger, it's a question of getting everyone used
> to the idea that they have to obey all speed limits.

Why? You repeat this idea as though if you keep saying it, it might
become true.

The law has a purpose, and that is to protect people [2] from other
people. When you lose that link, you lose the purpose of the law.

*I* want safer roads. *You* want unthinking obedience. I'm not
normally one to bandy around conspiracy theories and words like
"police state", but can you really not see what this irrational
obsession with speed limits is doing?

> Maybe once they've got that hang of that we can move on to more
> complicated stuff like traffic lights.

Traffic lights is easy. If it's red, don't go. If it's green, think
about going. If it's orange, stop if you can.

And the reason that that is easy is because there are, most of the
time, very clear consequences for not stopping at red traffic lights.
There will usually be pedestrians or other traffic crossing your path,
and to try to drive through them is clearly not safe. When the lights
are green, it's your right of way, and you almost certainly won't have
anything impeding your way [3].

> It's not a secondary factor - the faster you go the less time you have
> to avoid potentially dangerous situations, the harder you hit things
> and the more damage you do.

Agreed. So you don't go faster where it isn't safe to do so.

I freely admit to breaking the speed limit when it's safe to do so. In
all my time driving, the only accident I've had involved reverse gear,
walking pace and a gatepost. A large number of my friends and family
have been involved in accidents, and in almost every case, they (and
other vehicles involved) were travelling within the speed limit at the
start of the incident.

Not hitting things is better than making sure you only hit them
gently.

The problem with your argument is that unless you allow some
acceptable level of risk, you'll be bringing back the Red Flag Act.
OK, so I've slowed down to the speed limit, but if I hit someone, I'd
do them less damage if I slowed down more. So I'll slow down more. And
the same is still true. So I slow down more. Repeat ad infinitum.

So, by the fact that you are happy for drivers to get up to 60mph on
an open and empty road, you are prepared to accept that level of risk.
But why _that_ level? What is so special about that magic 60mph?
Nothing!

I don't want to be in a car crash. I'm not going to drive faster than
is safe. Like the majority of drivers, if I do break the speed limit,
it is because it is safe to do so. The damage caused by your putative
accident is irrelevant, because there isn't going to be an accident.


[1] Ignoring any existing enforcement along the road.

[2] Extended definition of "people" to include your possessions and
property

[3] Which of course, you do have to watch out for. It's because I
always look left and right at traffic lights that I'm here today, and
didn't get splattered when some idiotic chav went straight through a
set of red lights at >50mph in Hull some while back.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

 

[Stevie D]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> Indeed not, but if speed cameras do increase road safety (which for
> the present we'll treat as axiomatic), then if you're pro road safety,
> you have to be pro camera. Modus ponendo ponens, to be precise; you
> cannot get simpler than that.

Why should it be axiomatic? You're begging the question, one of the
simplest of all logical fallacies.

Yes, in some situations, speed cameras do help to improve road safety
- but in plenty of others, they don't. I'm sure we can all find
instances of speed cameras that are well-sited if we look hard enough,
where accidents *at that spot* have fallen. But that fails to address
the wider issue of whether they affect *road safety*. I have very
little faith that they do.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

 

[Stevie D]

Ian Smith wrote:

> Quick recap - I said I want the government to do more enforcement of
> all types of motoring law, and to you this proves that I am in favour
> of drangerous driving.

Quick recap - you want anyone who disagrees with your point of view to
have their ideas beaten out of them, and you place a higher value of
blind and unthinking obedience to the law than you do on your fellow
man.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

 

[Jeff York]

Stevie D <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> So are you in favour of more speed cameras and more traffic police ?
>
>I am certainly in favour of more traffic police.
>
>I am tentatively in favour of speed cameras in specific targeted
>locations, such as on an otherwise good road where there is a need to
>slow down that may not be fully appreciated by all drivers - eg a
>school, a side turning with limited visibility.

I'd suggest that a sensibly-calibrated VAS (vehicle activated sign)
would be better... The TRL have demonstrated that they are about 4
times more effective in slowing drivers down than speed cameras. If
you think about it, they flash a message at you - there and then...
All the camera does is arrange for you to get a bill for £60 a
week-or-so later.

>... But that should only
>be a last resort - it would be better to re-engineer the road so that
>drivers instinctively drive at an appropriate speed.

IMHO, good road engineering, perhaps backed-up with a VAS system if
the hazard isn't obvious, is always going to provide the best solution
with regard to actual road safety.

--
[email protected] (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there..

.... There's pleasure sure in being mad
That none but madmen know...
Dryden

 

[[email protected]]

Rob Morley wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>
> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Yup. And deterrence is a large part of that. Speed cameras can and do deter
> > speeding - but only if they are moved around, occur in unexpected places,
> > and are hard to spot. Well known speed cameras result in no more that a
> > little local hiccup, as drivers hurtle up to the camera, brake wildly,
> > drive legally past the camera and then accelerate away again.
> >
> There was a mention on the local news of a system of automated /average
> speed/ cameras in use on the M6 roadworks - they use a number plate
> recognition system like the congestion charge cameras, and calculate the
> average speed between two cameras placed some distance apart. An
> extension of this sort of system would soon discourage the "brake for
> the camera then speed up again" mentality.

 

[Stevie D]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> According to Transport Statistics Great Britain 2006[1], published
> yesterday, 50% of all motorcycles and cars observed (other than cars
> towing trailers), and 53% of all light goods vehicles observed, broke
> the speed limit in 30mph limits this year. Even scarier, 53% of the
> heaviest class of HGVs observed exceeded 30mph limits. 52% of all cars
> and 54% of all motorcycles observed broke the speed limit in 40mph
> limits (tables 7.10, 7.11).

I'd like to see more information about the methodology of that study,
and in particular, how the target sites were chosen.

But what this highlights really well, so thanks for pointing it out,
is that _despite_ the fact that half of drivers were exceeding the
speed limit, the vast majority were not involved in any accident or
incident.

That isn't just down to luck. It's because most of the time, where
people are breaking the speed limit, there is negligible danger from
doing so.

> Table 8.3 demonstrates that rural A roads - where the speed limit is
> 60mph - are the real killing fields of Britain's road system with 1106
> deaths per hundred million vehicle kilometres. That's one death for every
> 90,500 vehicle kilometres or 56,000 vehicle miles.

I'm glad that you have found these stats, because they are doing your
cause so much harm!

Only 10% of drivers on NSL single-carriageways were breaking the speed
limit, and less than 4% were breaking it by more than 10%. Compare
that with 50% of drivers breaking the 30mph limit, with over 20% of
those exceeding it by more than 10%.

And where is the danger? On NSL roads. Where speeding is far less
acute.

Your point might have been better made if you had read the statistics
right though - the thought that the average death takes only 56 000
miles on an open road would have rung alarm bells with anyone au fait
with, say, basic arithmetic.

The *number* of deaths was 1 106. The *rate* was 24 per 10^8 km. That
is still over 4 million kilometres _per death_.

I'm not saying that's acceptable, far from it. But further automating
traffic enforcement by the use of speed cameras will not make an
appreciable dent in the accident, injury or fatality rate.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

 

[[email protected]]

Rob Morley wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>
> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Yup. And deterrence is a large part of that. Speed cameras can and do deter
> > speeding - but only if they are moved around, occur in unexpected places,
> > and are hard to spot. Well known speed cameras result in no more that a
> > little local hiccup, as drivers hurtle up to the camera, brake wildly,
> > drive legally past the camera and then accelerate away again.
> >
> There was a mention on the local news of a system of automated /average
> speed/ cameras in use on the M6 roadworks - they use a number plate
> recognition system like the congestion charge cameras, and calculate the
> average speed between two cameras placed some distance apart. An
> extension of this sort of system would soon discourage the "brake for
> the camera then speed up again" mentality.

Hardly. If you change lane the system just ignores you. You then change
to another lane, and continue to get ignored. You can shuffle lanes
inbetween the cameras and never get ticketed.

 

[Stevie D]

Jeff York wrote:

> I'd suggest that a sensibly-calibrated VAS (vehicle activated sign)
> would be better... The TRL have demonstrated that they are about 4
> times more effective in slowing drivers down than speed cameras.

When used in the right places, yes. But you have to be careful where
you use them. Boy racer types can sometimes see them as a challenge,
as to who can log the highest speed, which is worrying.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

 

[Stevie D]

Peter Clinch wrote:

> But of course if there were a million speed cameras he might not be so
> fixated with saving one or two seconds there and here because the
> culture of driving might change. Just as the culture of red light
> jumping would almost certainly change if the perps were frequently
> prosecuted any time they did it.

You don't seem to have much experience of human nature.

Far more likely that if one opportunity for saving time on a journey -
safely exceeding the speed limit - is effectively closed off, drivers
will look for other opportunities to save time. That is likely to
result in more dangerous overtaking manoeuvres, especially of cyclists
and horse-riders, as drivers try to compensate for the needlessly
extended journey times they are having to endure.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

 

[Jeff York]

Stevie D <[email protected]> wrote:

>Jeff York wrote:
>
>> I'd suggest that a sensibly-calibrated VAS (vehicle activated sign)
>> would be better... The TRL have demonstrated that they are about 4
>> times more effective in slowing drivers down than speed cameras.
>
>When used in the right places, yes. But you have to be careful where
>you use them. Boy racer types can sometimes see them as a challenge,
>as to who can log the highest speed, which is worrying.

They don't need to tell you how fast you're going... Just that it's
"too fast"

--
[email protected] (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there..

.... There's pleasure sure in being mad
That none but madmen know...
Dryden