OT: Speed camera folly confirmed

[Matt B]

David Martin wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
>>And it is precisely that obsession with speed that limits and cameras
>>lead to. It /doesn't/ matter what actual speed you are traveling at so
>>long as you are aware of your surroundings, and know you are traveling
>>within an appropriate safety envelope. Are you aware of your precise
>>speed when walking or cycling?
>
>
> Take the speedo away and people will gradually drive further outside
> their safety envelope. Even when they 'know' it is outside the envelope
> (and virtually nobody knows what their current safety envelope is [1]).

Have you seen how people go slower when the road is narrower, or there
is a b=narrow gap between parked cars? They are not relying on the
speedo to help with their choice of speed.

> Positive reinforcement in the form of not crashing and getting where
> you want to be faster leads to the rare (for an individual) occurances
> where you are caught out being regarded by society as 'unlucky' and not
> the fault of the vehicle operator.

We are conditioned and mislead by our street scene. If you are given a
straight clear run between kerbs, of course you will go too fast for
"unexpected" events such as someone wandering out.

> The brother of a friend was killed by 'mud on the road'. Well, no he
> wasn't, he was killed because he was going too fast without leaving
> appropriate time to adapt to the changing conditions.

Another victim of our nanny state molly coddling us into a false sense
of security on our immaculately presented roads.

--
Matt B

 

[[email protected]]

Matt B wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:

> > So catching criminals doesn't reduce the crime rate, then ?
>
> You know differently?
>

So you reckon that potential criminals aren't deterred
from commiting crimes due to the threat of arrest and punishment ?

And if drivers really don't care if they get fined for exceeding the
speed
limit, why do you maintain speed cameras are a distraction ?

 

[David Martin]

Matt B wrote:
> David Martin wrote:
> > Matt B wrote:
> >
> >>And it is precisely that obsession with speed that limits and cameras
> >>lead to. It /doesn't/ matter what actual speed you are traveling at so
> >>long as you are aware of your surroundings, and know you are traveling
> >>within an appropriate safety envelope. Are you aware of your precise
> >>speed when walking or cycling?
> >
> >
> > Take the speedo away and people will gradually drive further outside
> > their safety envelope. Even when they 'know' it is outside the envelope
> > (and virtually nobody knows what their current safety envelope is [1]).
>
> Have you seen how people go slower when the road is narrower, or there
> is a b=narrow gap between parked cars? They are not relying on the
> speedo to help with their choice of speed.

Why do you insist on trying to generalise the (extremely variable)
effect of horizontal engineering to all roads/road conditions? It
doesn't work, for obvious reasons, where the risk of lateral control
being insufficient is much lower than the risk of forward velocity
being too great. Take a road near me. On a few occasions I have had to
use the speedo as an aid to keeping my speed within a safety envelope I
was comfortable with. This may have frustrated other drivers, but I had
established a safe limit though empirical means and I am damned sure
they hadn't a clue as to what the safe margin was.

> > Positive reinforcement in the form of not crashing and getting where
> > you want to be faster leads to the rare (for an individual) occurances
> > where you are caught out being regarded by society as 'unlucky' and not
> > the fault of the vehicle operator.
>
> We are conditioned and mislead by our street scene. If you are given a
> straight clear run between kerbs, of course you will go too fast for
> "unexpected" events such as someone wandering out.

This was on a country road with NSL. I don't think your particular
dream of traffic engineering is generally applicable outside of low
speed residential areas (where it does work, as I have always claimed).
As soon as the roads start to need busses, lorries,and a certain level
of flow, the model is not sustainable without other, non physical,
engineering (ie legislation and enforcement).

> > The brother of a friend was killed by 'mud on the road'. Well, no he
> > wasn't, he was killed because he was going too fast without leaving
> > appropriate time to adapt to the changing conditions.
>
> Another victim of our nanny state molly coddling us into a false sense
> of security on our immaculately presented roads.

Another victim of his own folly. There is no such thing as society (as
an entity to blame when we don't want to take responsibility to put the
quote into it's proper context).

...d

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>
>>>So catching criminals doesn't reduce the crime rate, then ?
>>
>>You know differently?
>>
> So you reckon that potential criminals aren't deterred
> from commiting crimes due to the threat of arrest and punishment ?
>
> And if drivers really don't care if they get fined for exceeding the
> speed
> limit, why do you maintain speed cameras are a distraction ?

Is our crime rate going down? Has the UK KSI reduction rate improved?

Both of these will be improved when we are encouraged to respect each
other. That means, in the case of KSI reduction designing and providing
road space which gives non-motorists equal priority.

--
Matt B

 

[[email protected]]

Matt B wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > So you reckon that potential criminals aren't deterred
> > from commiting crimes due to the threat of arrest and punishment ?
> >
> > And if drivers really don't care if they get fined for exceeding the
> > speed
> > limit, why do you maintain speed cameras are a distraction ?
>
> Is our crime rate going down?

I'm going to stick my neck out here, and suggest that the crime rate is
currently lower than it would be if the entire criminal justice system
were abolished.

YVMV

 

[jtaylor]

The troll "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> It /doesn't/ matter what actual speed you are traveling at so
> long as you are aware of your surroundings, and know you are traveling
> within an appropriate safety envelope.

Yes it does - you see, there's a law that makes it a crime to exceed certain
speeds in certain circumstances. That's why it matters.

> Are you aware of your precise
> speed when walking or cycling?

No. because there is no law limiting cycling or walking speed.

 

[Matt B]

jtaylor wrote:
> The troll "Matt B"

Round of applause. Did you think of that yourself?

> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>It /doesn't/ matter what actual speed you are traveling at so
>>long as you are aware of your surroundings, and know you are traveling
>>within an appropriate safety envelope.
>
> Yes it does - you see, there's a law that makes it a crime to exceed certain
> speeds in certain circumstances. That's why it matters.

And /you/ have just proved everything I've been saying is true.

************
Thank You !!
************

>>Are you aware of your precise
>>speed when walking or cycling?
>
> No. because there is no law limiting cycling or walking speed.

Is it my lucky day or what!

--
Matt B

 

[David Martin]

Matt B wrote:
> jtaylor wrote:
> > The troll "Matt B"
>
> Round of applause. Did you think of that yourself?
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>It /doesn't/ matter what actual speed you are traveling at so
> >>long as you are aware of your surroundings, and know you are traveling
> >>within an appropriate safety envelope.
> >
> > Yes it does - you see, there's a law that makes it a crime to exceed certain
> > speeds in certain circumstances. That's why it matters.
>
> And /you/ have just proved everything I've been saying is true.

No he hasn't. The law makes it impossible to avoid an accident if you
are travelling outside your safety envelope. If you know your stopping
distance at the speed you are travelling then you do not need to know
the exact speed. However, if you do not have a means of checking your
speed then you do not have a metric against which to determine whether
your current stopping distance is the same as it was n seconds ago.

>
> ************
> Thank You !!
> ************
>
> >>Are you aware of your precise
> >>speed when walking or cycling?
> >
> > No. because there is no law limiting cycling or walking speed.
>
> Is it my lucky day or what!

You find someone who posts a silly answer and claim it validates your
non-argument.. you do have a low standard of proof when it comes to
your points, and a very high standard when it comes to the points of
others..

...d

 

[Jon Senior]

Matt B wrote:
> Why be confrontational when it's a human nature problem?

Because you aren't going to adjust human nature without confronting it.
Next question please.

> And it is precisely that obsession with speed that limits and cameras
> lead to. It /doesn't/ matter what actual speed you are traveling at so
> long as you are aware of your surroundings, and know you are traveling
> within an appropriate safety envelope. Are you aware of your precise
> speed when walking or cycling?

Congratulations on successfully missing the point once again. I don't
strive to drive at a given speed. I'm perfectly capable (esp. on roads
that I know) of maintaining a given speed without that distracting me
from my surroundings. "Speedo-watching" is a non-existant problem. Or
rather it is a problem which has a simpler solution than the removal of
speed cameras, namely removal of the drivers who can't manage.

When cycling, I have an awareness of my speed, because I'm a) used to
riding with a speedo, b) operating in a narrow range of speeds, which
makes it easier to accurately estimate current speed (without the
speedo). On foot. I haven't a clue other than it's usually faster than
my fellow pedestrians.

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Matt B wrote:
> Have you seen how people go slower when the road is narrower, or there
> is a b=narrow gap between parked cars?

Infrequently, yes. It is a part of standard driving instruction, but in
my experience, very few people actually manage it. I've seen some speed
up, presumably to clear the danger zone faster!

> They are not relying on the
> speedo to help with their choice of speed.

You're right. They're relying on a) not having died last time they did
this, b) being wrapped in a steel cage which is probably going to keep
them safe in an impact. From conversations with various drivers over the
last few years (Since my viewpoint drifted to where it currently is!) I
was concerned that a great many drivers often only remembered their
obligation to those around them as an afterthought. They would discuss
speed limits as being in force to protect _them_ not that they might be
protecting other people from _them_.

> Another victim of our nanny state molly coddling us into a false sense
> of security on our immaculately presented roads.

But our nanny state does not do this. Hark your mind back to your
driving instruction (Assuming for a minute that you are actually over 17
and can drive!). How often did your instructor tell you that a 60mph
sign meant that it was safe to drive at 60mph? How often were you told
to adjust your speed according to the current conditions? What do you
think would happen to the KSI rate if driving was enforced to the DSA
standard continuously?

Jon

 

[Alan Holmes]

"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In a thread here not too long ago, it was said, in an attempt to ridicule
> my contention that speed cameras were not chosen because they were thought
> to be the most effective way of reducing KSIs across the country, and that
> other solutions would be more effective:

What on earth is a KSI?

> "If you have a site that requires some treatment, a traffic engineer will
> look at it and suggest an appropriate treatment method. they do not just
> pick one at random."
>
> It has been reported today that indeed they were not chosen at random[1].
>
> ================
> Mr Darling told BBC News that authorities often chose to install new
> cameras as they were effectively free, being run with funds from central
> government.

And you were silly enough to believe a politicion?

Alan

 

[Alex Potter]

Alan Holmes wrote on Thursday 15 December 2005 16:26:

> What on earth is a KSI?
Killed/Seriously Injured?
--
Regards
Alex
The From address above is a spam-trap.
The Reply-To address is valid

 

[Alistair Gunn]

David Martin twisted the electrons to say:
> 1) Priority to the left on non-trunk routes
> 2) Presumption of fault on the part of those with the highest duty of
> care.
> 3) Blanket 20mph default speed limit for residential non-trunk routes.

How about replacing the drivers airbag with a metal spike? <grins>
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

 

[LSMike]

Matt B wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > 'we already know that they reduce accidents in a very limited area,
> > but not as well as other methods.'
> >
> > That's because the government were stupid enough to paint the things
> > bright yellow and allow their location to be publicised. This means
> > that motorists know exactly where they can get away with speeding.
>
> That's why they /do/ work. I suppose it depends what you mean by
> /working/. Hidden cameras catch more speeders, obvious cameras reduce
> speeding.

Of course that's rubbish Matt. Hidden cameras make drivers reduce
their speed *everywhere*.

> > What
> > we really need is the introduction of Intelligent Speed Adaptation
> > systems as soon as possible
>
> We already have that, the driver, but, because of the burdens of
> speedometer watching, traffic light watching, kerb watching, line
> watching, and because of the false sense of superiority we give them by
> the design of our road spaces they are denied the opportunity to use it.

Going by the torrent of speeding vehicles observable almost anywhere in
the UK, especially whilst racing up to the next queue, intelligent
speed choice would seem to be the last thing most UK drivers are
capable of.

> > and until then, as well as the continued
> > use of cameras at proven crash 'black spots', the random and blanket
> > use of covert speed enforcement so drivers are encouraged to slow down
> > everywhere, not just where there is a bright yellow box by the side of
> > the road. At the very least the resultant lower speeds would ensure
> > that the consequences of any crash that might happen, however caused,
> > would be less severe than if the driver were speeding...
>
> Now take a look at the /effective/ methods being used elsewhere.
>
> --
> Matt B

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, David
Martin ('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> > So what we have is the choice between 'Speed camera/no change'
>> > broadened to 'Speed camera/other engineering change/no change'.
>> > Council expenditure has not been limited like this, just the
>> > relatively small amount of money contributed by speeding motorists.
>> >
>> > As 95% of all motorists admit to regularly breaking the law, maybe
>> > we should adopt the Thieves Guild mode of operation and just send
>> > them all a speeding fine every 3 months, spending the proceeds on
>> > traffic calming.
>>
>> That already happens. VED is charged at a higher rate than is
>> essential to cover the cost of administrating a register of motor
>> vehicles, and fuel duty, and VAT on fuel duty are purely punitive
>> taxes.
>
> VED doesn't cover the cost of the road network. Specific licensing
> costs only cover about 75% but the use of motor vehicles predicates
> almost 100% of expenditure

DAVID!

Behave. _You're_ old enough to know better.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Copyright (c) Simon Brooke; All rights reserved. Permission is
granted to transfer this message via UUCP or NNTP and to store it
for the purpose of archiving or further transfer. Permission is
explicitly denied to use this message as part of a 'Web Forum', or
to transfer it by HTTP.

 

[mb]

David Martin wrote:

>
> It obviously hasn't dropped where you are. I have already postulated
> three simple legislative changes that would dramatically reduce
> accidents:
> 1) Priority to the left on non-trunk routes
> 2) Presumption of fault on the part of those with the highest duty of
> care.
> 3) Blanket 20mph default speed limit for residential non-trunk routes.
>


Is there any research to go with these "accident reducing measures"?

1) What would be the use of this? I only ask because, as a resident of
Holland, where we have this "priority to the right" rule, nobody can
really see that it does any good.

2) And how long would it be before somebody realises that throwing
their bike under a car would be a good way of getting a new one? Don't
say it wouldn't happen, it already has.

--
Mike

 

[mb]

David Martin wrote:

> No he hasn't. The law makes it impossible to avoid an accident if you
> are travelling outside your safety envelope.


Er, what law is that then?


--
Mike

 

[David Martin]

mb wrote:
> David Martin wrote:
>
> >
> > It obviously hasn't dropped where you are. I have already postulated
> > three simple legislative changes that would dramatically reduce
> > accidents:
> > 1) Priority to the left on non-trunk routes
> > 2) Presumption of fault on the part of those with the highest duty of
> > care.
> > 3) Blanket 20mph default speed limit for residential non-trunk routes.
> >
>
>
> Is there any research to go with these "accident reducing measures"?
>
> 1) What would be the use of this? I only ask because, as a resident of
> Holland, where we have this "priority to the right" rule, nobody can
> really see that it does any good.

I have lived in Norway which has this rule. The great advantage is that
you travel slower when there is a risk you have to give way. The maxim
that rights of way should be yielded rather than assumed springs to
mind. It is hard to find good research on this as performing
appropriate studies is problematic. One could consider the accident
rates on these roads vs priority roads and normalise with other
countries based on the accident rates on the priority roads...

> 2) And how long would it be before somebody realises that throwing
> their bike under a car would be a good way of getting a new one? Don't
> say it wouldn't happen, it already has.

I daresay it has. But the number of people getting a new bike who
didn't want one, and definitely not the accessory kit with retro
reflective wings and harp, drops by a substantially larger amount- 50%
was one figure I have seen quoted.

Which is preferable, people who will use a car to push cyclists out of
the way (after all they won't be hurt cos they are wearing a h****t) or
the odd cyclist crashing into a car to claim on the insurance? It is a
question of the lesser of two evils.

 

[David Martin]

mb wrote:
> David Martin wrote:
>
> > No he hasn't. The law makes it impossible to avoid an accident if you
> > are travelling outside your safety envelope.
>
>
> Er, what law is that then?

Newtons..

...d

 

[mb]

David Martin wrote:

>
> mb wrote:
> > David Martin wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It obviously hasn't dropped where you are. I have already
> > > postulated three simple legislative changes that would
> > > dramatically reduce accidents:
> > > 1) Priority to the left on non-trunk routes
> > > 2) Presumption of fault on the part of those with the highest
> > > duty of care.
> > > 3) Blanket 20mph default speed limit for residential non-trunk
> > > routes.
> > >
> >
> > Is there any research to go with these "accident reducing measures"?
> >
> > 1) What would be the use of this? I only ask because, as a resident
> > of Holland, where we have this "priority to the right" rule, nobody
> > can really see that it does any good.
>
> I have lived in Norway which has this rule. The great advantage is
> that you travel slower when there is a risk you have to give way.


That would be nice...
A couple of years ago, the law was changed slightly, giving priority to
ALL traffic from the right (where the rule applies, which is something
which isn't all that clear).
It's a brave cyclist who now takes this priority when he has it (in the
face of an oncoming car etc.).

Don't think I haven't noticed that people only slow down at these
junctions when they really have to, ie. when they can see another
car/vehicle about to pull out. They really don't take that much notice
of cyclists.


>
> > 2) And how long would it be before somebody realises that throwing
> > their bike under a car would be a good way of getting a new one?
> > Don't say it wouldn't happen, it already has.
>
>
> Which is preferable, people who will use a car to push cyclists out of
> the way (after all they won't be hurt cos they are wearing a h****t)
> or the odd cyclist crashing into a car to claim on the insurance? It
> is a question of the lesser of two evils.


What if it was thrown under your car?


--
Mike