[OT] Reducing the amount of speeding cars on the road.



Ekul Namsob <[email protected]> wrote:

> mb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 31 May 2007 22:54:25 +0000, Martin Dann wrote:
> >
> > > I doubt this will get any where, but it is a response to Paul smiths
> > > petition. (ok this would never happen, but a response is needed).
> > >
> > > http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/BanSpeeders/

>
> > Don't consistent speeders get banned anyway? Doesn't the points on licence
> > system work?

>
> As I understand it, consistent speeders learn to slow down for brightly
> coloured yellow boxes.
>
> Cheers,
> Luke


there is one near ish to where my parents live that gets a lot, on teh
edge of a 40 zone, about a mile or so visablity, how any one can miss
it...

but miss it they do, though it doesn't miss them.

roger
 
On 1 Jun, 08:43, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1 Jun, 08:36, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 31 May, 23:54, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > I doubt this will get any where, but it is a response to Paul smiths
> > > petition. (ok this would never happen, but a response is needed).

>
> > >http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/BanSpeeders/

>
> > > Martin.

>
> > would a response that doesn't make you a laughing stock be better?

>
> > Fod

>
> The roads are too congested and twelve hundred graves a year are
> filled by the victims of speeders so I've signed.
>


And admitted your, er, personal problem?
Get the nurse to change your bag
And get your facts right its only 5% due to excessive speed despite
your lies
 
"vernon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "John Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On May 31, 6:54 pm, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I doubt this will get any where, but it is a response to Paul smiths
>>> petition. (ok this would never happen, but a response is needed).
>>>
>>> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/BanSpeeders/
>>>
>>> Martin.

>>
>> Err, "Reducing the number of speeding cars on the road" ?
>> Amount is not a count noun.
>> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

>
> The OP might have meant allowing only, say, 50% of each speeding car to
> continue its journey......
>>

>

That would work! Anyone caught speeding will be allowed on their way with
the proviso that they remove their wheels first. It is not a stealth tax on
drivers, and it has the desired effect of preventing re-offence. :)

David Lloyd
 
"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Marc Brett wrote:
>> ... it's perverse to suggest that speeding has has no big effect on road
>> safety.

>
> Let's examine what you have just said.
>
> Presumably then, if you think that "speeding" has an effect on road
> safety, you will expect that reducing its incidence will have a positive
> effect on road safety, and increasing its incidence will have a negative
> effect?
>
> Now let us see two reasons why those assumptions are absurd.
>
> 1. One guaranteed method of eliminating speeding is to set the speed limit
> at a level that could not possibly be exceeded by road-going vehicles.
> Would the resultant elimination of "speeding" deliver the expected safety
> effect?
>
> 2. A measure guaranteed to increase the incidence of "speeding" is to set
> the speed limit at a ridiculously low value. Would the resultant increase
> in the incidence of "speeding", even though most traffic would now
> probably be travelling much slower, deliver as predicted, more dangerous
> roads?
>
> So less speeding could correlate with less safety, and more "speeding"
> could correlate with more safety.
>
> "Speeding" is *not* a reliable measure against which road safety can be
> predicted.
>
> --
> Matt B


One would like to think that the speed limits applied to roads truely
reflect the hazards present on those roads. Road and weather conditions
should also feed-back into a driver's choice of appropriate speed. For a
conversation on speeding, it would be helpful to classify a speeding
motorist as one that travels at a speed greater than appropriate for the
conditions, regardless of what the signs say.

David Lloyd
 
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 11:06:02 GMT, "David Lloyd"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>One would like to think that the speed limits applied to roads truely
>reflect the hazards present on those roads.


They reflect more than immediately visible hazards. They may also
reflect residents' concern about air and noise pollution, and their fear
of using the footpaths and roads safely. A car driver is not equipped
to judge these factors.

>Road and weather conditions
>should also feed-back into a driver's choice of appropriate speed. For a
>conversation on speeding, it would be helpful to classify a speeding
>motorist as one that travels at a speed greater than appropriate for the
>conditions, regardless of what the signs say.


It would be most unhelpful; a speed limit sign IS one of the conditions
for which a motorist has to adjust his speed.
 
David Lloyd wrote:
> "Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Marc Brett wrote:
>>> ... it's perverse to suggest that speeding has has no big effect on road
>>> safety.

>> Let's examine what you have just said.
>>
>> Presumably then, if you think that "speeding" has an effect on road
>> safety, you will expect that reducing its incidence will have a positive
>> effect on road safety, and increasing its incidence will have a negative
>> effect?
>>
>> Now let us see two reasons why those assumptions are absurd.
>>
>> 1. One guaranteed method of eliminating speeding is to set the speed limit
>> at a level that could not possibly be exceeded by road-going vehicles.
>> Would the resultant elimination of "speeding" deliver the expected safety
>> effect?
>>
>> 2. A measure guaranteed to increase the incidence of "speeding" is to set
>> the speed limit at a ridiculously low value. Would the resultant increase
>> in the incidence of "speeding", even though most traffic would now
>> probably be travelling much slower, deliver as predicted, more dangerous
>> roads?
>>
>> So less speeding could correlate with less safety, and more "speeding"
>> could correlate with more safety.
>>
>> "Speeding" is *not* a reliable measure against which road safety can be
>> predicted.

>
> One would like to think that the speed limits applied to roads truely
> reflect the hazards present on those roads.


But, of course, we know that they can't. It /would/ be a very uniform
and dull land if on every inch of every urban street it was safe to
travel at precisely 30 mph, and yet dangerous to travel at 31 mph.

In reality the hazards vary by the type/size/shape/power/tyres of your
vehicle, by the day, by time of day, by time of year, by the weather
conditions, and that every inch of every road has some unique quality
which would affect the appropriate safe speed.

It is thus obvious that "speeding" cannot be considered as a measure of
"dangerousness" of a driver, and thus obvious that speed cameras, which
can only detect "speeding" are useless.

> Road and weather conditions
> should also feed-back into a driver's choice of appropriate speed.


Exactly - for "a driver's choice". I wonder in what percentage of all
distance travelled, in all journeys, the posted speed limit is actually
at or below the /appropriate/ (safe) speed. I suspect that in many, if
not most, it is way too high to be considered an "appropriate" speed.

> For a
> conversation on speeding, it would be helpful to classify a speeding
> motorist as one that travels at a speed greater than appropriate for the
> conditions, regardless of what the signs say.


Yes. We know that current road safety policy makes that impossible
though as speed cameras cannot judge "appropriate" speed, only whether
"speeding" is occurring.[1] We know that the official collision
statistics don't even record "inappropriate" speed, if it was a
contributory factor, if "speeding" also occurred. In other words, we
don't know how many collision involving "speeding" happened at a speed
which would otherwise have been considered an "appropriate" speed for
the conditions.

[1] Most can't even detect speeding some of time because they have to be
hard-set to trigger at one give speed, yet speed limits can vary, at any
given location, by vehicle type.

--
Matt B
 
Marc Brett wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 11:06:02 GMT, "David Lloyd"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> One would like to think that the speed limits applied to roads truely
>> reflect the hazards present on those roads.

>
> They reflect more than immediately visible hazards.


Except they don't even reflect "immediately visible hazards". They are
blanket numbers, with the urban limits in particular, covering wide
areas of constantly varying "immediately visible hazards".

> They may also
> reflect residents' concern about air and noise pollution,


How can speed limits reflect those factors? Air pollution is
proportional to fuel consumption, which is not so much proportional to
speed, as to load and to engine speed. So it also depends what gear you
are in.

> and their fear
> of using the footpaths and roads safely.


A blunt tool indeed.

> A car driver is not equipped
> to judge these factors.


I think you'll find that there are better ways to controll all of those
factors than blanket, arbitrary, speed limits.

>> Road and weather conditions
>> should also feed-back into a driver's choice of appropriate speed. For a
>> conversation on speeding, it would be helpful to classify a speeding
>> motorist as one that travels at a speed greater than appropriate for the
>> conditions, regardless of what the signs say.

>
> It would be most unhelpful; a speed limit sign IS one of the conditions
> for which a motorist has to adjust his speed.


Yet you support speeding as a measure of "dangerousness"? It is, of
course, the only thing that speed cameras have any chance of measuring
too. Driving at the limit is probably inappropriate more times than it
is appropriate.

--
Matt B
 
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:43:33 +0100, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>Marc Brett wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 11:06:02 GMT, "David Lloyd"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> One would like to think that the speed limits applied to roads truely
>>> reflect the hazards present on those roads.

>>
>> They reflect more than immediately visible hazards.

>
>Except they don't even reflect "immediately visible hazards". They are
>blanket numbers, with the urban limits in particular, covering wide
>areas of constantly varying "immediately visible hazards".


So?

>> They may also
>> reflect residents' concern about air and noise pollution,

>
>How can speed limits reflect those factors? Air pollution is
>proportional to fuel consumption, which is not so much proportional to
>speed, as to load and to engine speed. So it also depends what gear you
>are in.


"Occifer, I was speeding because my Ferrari didn't have a low enough
gear for the road!" What, now, you want to legislate for a particular
gear? Better to legislate for fuel consumption meters in every car and
let the driver choose a gear which minimises wastefulness. This would
work for all gears, all speeds and all speed limits.

>> and their fear
>> of using the footpaths and roads safely.

>
>A blunt tool indeed.


But cost effective.

>> A car driver is not equipped
>> to judge these factors.

>
>I think you'll find that there are better ways to controll all of those
>factors than blanket, arbitrary, speed limits.


At what cost? A sign costs a teeny tiny fraction of what a Mondrian
utopia retrofit costs.

>>> Road and weather conditions
>>> should also feed-back into a driver's choice of appropriate speed. For a
>>> conversation on speeding, it would be helpful to classify a speeding
>>> motorist as one that travels at a speed greater than appropriate for the
>>> conditions, regardless of what the signs say.

>>
>> It would be most unhelpful; a speed limit sign IS one of the conditions
>> for which a motorist has to adjust his speed.

>
>Yet you support speeding as a measure of "dangerousness"? It is, of
>course, the only thing that speed cameras have any chance of measuring
>too. Driving at the limit is probably inappropriate more times than it
>is appropriate.


So drive below the limit. Is that so hard?

A robot camera, and even a wetware plod, hasn't a hope of judging
appropriate speed below the limit to a degree which would hold up in
court, unless a RTA occurs. So a legal limit, blunt a tool as you may
find it, is the only legal remedy for excessive speed. Administer it by
plods, which generates hostility against the constabulary, or by robots,
which merely generates cries of "not fair!"

You and Paul Smith go and cry in your beer.
 
Marc Brett wrote:
> A robot camera, and even a wetware plod, hasn't a hope of judging
> appropriate speed below the limit to a degree which would hold up in
> court, unless a RTA* occurs.


All it needs is some legislation, and a decent set of stereoscopic
cameras or LIDAR systems, and it would be perfectly feasible to
legislate that drivers should leave certain times available for
contingencies, and then calculate whether they had left that amount of
reaction time.

Of course, such would require a large and unusually complex government
IT project to automatically create models from the photos and (and far
more than just CRUD on a database) as well as the will, money and
technology to make it happen.

But such things could, and should be done in 20 years time when it's
possible.
--
A

*No such thing as an RT*A*
 
Marc Brett wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:43:33 +0100, Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> Marc Brett wrote:
>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 11:06:02 GMT, "David Lloyd"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> One would like to think that the speed limits applied to roads truely
>>>> reflect the hazards present on those roads.
>>> They reflect more than immediately visible hazards.

>> Except they don't even reflect "immediately visible hazards". They are
>> blanket numbers, with the urban limits in particular, covering wide
>> areas of constantly varying "immediately visible hazards".

>
> So?


Did you, or did you not, write that speed limits "reflect more than
immediately visible hazards"? I was pointing out that they can't
possibly e expected to pint /even/ those out. Thus nullifying your point.

>>> They may also
>>> reflect residents' concern about air and noise pollution,

>> How can speed limits reflect those factors? Air pollution is
>> proportional to fuel consumption, which is not so much proportional to
>> speed, as to load and to engine speed. So it also depends what gear you
>> are in.

>
> "Occifer, I was speeding because my Ferrari didn't have a low enough
> gear for the road!"


You said they also reflect those things - now you see they can't do
both, as they conflict with each other. You are making a very good case
against speed limits without much help. ;-)

> What, now, you want to legislate for a particular
> gear?


I'd settle for the removal of farcical and ill-conceived legislation.

> Better to legislate for fuel consumption meters in every car and
> let the driver choose a gear which minimises wastefulness.


How about rationing fossil fuel - the Ferrari driver could then choose
how he splits the use of his allocation between fuelling his house and
fuelling his car. Today fuelling your house not only creates more
emissions than fuelling your car, but it attracts NO "fuel duty", and a
much reduced rate of VAT. If pollution is a perceived problem then why
is it only emissions from cars that attract attention?

> This would
> work for all gears, all speeds and all speed limits.


It wouldn't affect total emissions much though would it - as the
majority of emissions are non generated by car..

>>> and their fear
>>> of using the footpaths and roads safely.

>> A blunt tool indeed.

>
> But cost effective.


Are you sure? Have you read RCGB recently? The downward trend has
stopped since speed limits became the central plank of road safety policies.

>>> A car driver is not equipped
>>> to judge these factors.

>> I think you'll find that there are better ways to controll all of those
>> factors than blanket, arbitrary, speed limits.

>
> At what cost?


What value would you put on significantly reducing the annual road
carnage we currently suffer, and on liberating our roads and streets
from car dominance?

> A sign costs a teeny tiny fraction of what a Mondrian
> utopia retrofit costs.


You get what you pay for though, im terms of returned benefit - remember
RCGB?

>>>> Road and weather conditions
>>>> should also feed-back into a driver's choice of appropriate speed. For a
>>>> conversation on speeding, it would be helpful to classify a speeding
>>>> motorist as one that travels at a speed greater than appropriate for the
>>>> conditions, regardless of what the signs say.
>>> It would be most unhelpful; a speed limit sign IS one of the conditions
>>> for which a motorist has to adjust his speed.

>> Yet you support speeding as a measure of "dangerousness"? It is, of
>> course, the only thing that speed cameras have any chance of measuring
>> too. Driving at the limit is probably inappropriate more times than it
>> is appropriate.

>
> So drive below the limit. Is that so hard?


So what did you say the limits were for again?

> A robot camera, and even a wetware plod, hasn't a hope of judging
> appropriate speed below the limit to a degree which would hold up in
> court, unless a RTA occurs.


"Appropriate speed" for cars should only need to be enforced on the
streets to the same extent as it is for pedestrians in shopping malls.
Inappropriate speed is a sign of inappropriate streets.

> So a legal limit, blunt a tool as you may
> find it, is the only legal remedy for excessive speed.


No. As we've already seen, there is no way that a speed limit can be
used to enforce "appropriate" speed, because speed limits are
hard-coded, and do not know what the appropriate speed may be for a
given vehicle and a given driver on a given road at a given time.

> Administer it by
> plods, which generates hostility against the constabulary, or by robots,
> which merely generates cries of "not fair!"


You can probably guess the answer to that one by now. ;-)

--
Matt B
 
In article <[email protected]>, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@n
ospam.london.com> writes
>In reality the hazards vary by the type/size/shape/power/tyres of your
>vehicle, by the day, by time of day, by time of year, by the weather
>conditions, and that every inch of every road has some unique quality
>which would affect the appropriate safe speed.


Decent road surfaces (no pot holes and decent levels of grip) are fast
becoming a luxury, in many places (so bad in some that only approaches
to traffic lights get 'grippy' surfaces). If the road surface has low
levels of grip, there is road signage for this and it should be posted.

>It is thus obvious that "speeding" cannot be considered as a measure of
>"dangerousness" of a driver, and thus obvious that speed cameras, which
>can only detect "speeding" are useless.


There is no clear evidence that speed cameras save lives, some figures
even suggest they increase fatalities.

--
John
 
"Marc Brett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 11:06:02 GMT, "David Lloyd"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>One would like to think that the speed limits applied to roads truely
>>reflect the hazards present on those roads.

>
> They reflect more than immediately visible hazards. They may also
> reflect residents' concern about air and noise pollution, and their fear
> of using the footpaths and roads safely. A car driver is not equipped
> to judge these factors.
>
>>Road and weather conditions
>>should also feed-back into a driver's choice of appropriate speed. For a
>>conversation on speeding, it would be helpful to classify a speeding
>>motorist as one that travels at a speed greater than appropriate for the
>>conditions, regardless of what the signs say.

>
> It would be most unhelpful; a speed limit sign IS one of the conditions
> for which a motorist has to adjust his speed.
>

But the speed limit signs do not reflect the appropriate speed when the
weather conditions deteriorate. An ex-colleague of mine put his Metro GTi
upside-down in a field, during a heavy rain storm, and claimed that he
wasn't speeding because he was below the limit on the signs. This is why we
should talk about speeding in terms of the conditions, not the signs.

David Lloyd
 
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:07:40 GMT, "David Lloyd"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Marc Brett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> It would be most unhelpful; a speed limit sign IS one of the conditions
>> for which a motorist has to adjust his speed.
>>

>But the speed limit signs do not reflect the appropriate speed when the
>weather conditions deteriorate. An ex-colleague of mine put his Metro GTi
>upside-down in a field, during a heavy rain storm, and claimed that he
>wasn't speeding because he was below the limit on the signs. This is why we
>should talk about speeding in terms of the conditions, not the signs.


I did use the phrase "one of" in my statement, did I not? As a maximum,
a speed limit permits any forward speed down to zero, as the driver
deems appropriate. Sure, talk about weather and other variables, but
it's just stupid to ignore the legal maximum.
 
Marc Brett wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:07:40 GMT, "David Lloyd"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Marc Brett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> It would be most unhelpful; a speed limit sign IS one of the conditions
>>> for which a motorist has to adjust his speed.
>>>

>> But the speed limit signs do not reflect the appropriate speed when the
>> weather conditions deteriorate. An ex-colleague of mine put his Metro GTi
>> upside-down in a field, during a heavy rain storm, and claimed that he
>> wasn't speeding because he was below the limit on the signs. This is why we
>> should talk about speeding in terms of the conditions, not the signs.

>
> I did use the phrase "one of" in my statement, did I not? As a maximum,
> a speed limit permits any forward speed down to zero, as the driver
> deems appropriate.


For sure, but that isn't the point. All drivers wearing seat belts
/could/ drive exactly as they would without them. All Toyota Land
Cruiser drivers could drive with the same care that they would use if
they were driving a Reliant Robin.

But in the majority of cases the tendency for human nature to intervene
is not consciously resisted, and risk homeostasis occurs. There is a
natural instinct to maintain a certain, constant, risk level. Subtle
adjustments are made, in response to feedback of perceived risk levels.

Seat belts induce a feeling security, Toyota Land Cruisers feel solid
and impenetrable, so risk levels can be increased. Risk is increased by
driving with less care and attention, or driving slightly faster, or
whatever. The consequences are that those outside of the cars are
actually at more risk from the cars.

Speed limits give the (unintended) subliminal message that a certain
speed has been officially sanctioned for that stretch of road, and it is
somehow inherently safe to use that speed - despite what it may say in
the Highway Code. This will tend to suppress any instinct that might
otherwise have suggested to a driver (due to weather, schools,
pedestrians, etc.) that a slightly slower speed is required to get the
risk to the appropriate level.

> Sure, talk about weather and other variables, but
> it's just stupid to ignore the legal maximum.


Not if ignoring it means that your speed would be more appropriate for
the circumstances - that that speed would be lower than the speed limit.

--
Matt B
 
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:08:12 +0100, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>> Sure, talk about weather and other variables, but
>> it's just stupid to ignore the legal maximum.

>
>Not if ignoring it means that your speed would be more appropriate for
>the circumstances - that that speed would be lower than the speed limit.


Perhaps that's the case if you're an unbelted Reliant Robin driver. But
the belted-up, height-elevated, airbag-protected, noise-suppressed,
well-suspended Toyota Land Cruiser driver is just as likely to exceed
that limit. Risk homeowhatsits and all that.

Modern cars make excessive speed seem so... safe. This means more, not
less, attention should be paid to speed limits, since the natural
inclination to drift above them is so much greater.
 

Similar threads