I'm afraid I disagree with Nigel Humphries, of the Association of British Drivers ("This has to be the worst case we have heard of") and Claire Armstrong, of Safespeed ("This is absolutely disgusting"). The big yellow camera is in a section of road-works, and is highly visible, and roadworks on motorways are more dangerous to drive through.
|
Yes motorway road works can be dangerous, but any law that is ignored by so many people is usually a bad law.
|
>> Yes motorway road works can be dangerous but any law that is ignored by so
>> many people is usually a bad law.
Not sure I can agree with widely ignored = bad law. The law on handheld phones is flouted daily bit that doesn't make it bad. Just too easy to get away with it; or not in this case!!
|
>> Not sure I can agree with widely ignored = bad law. The law on handheld
>> phones is flouted daily bit that doesn't make it bad. Just too easy to get
>> away with it; or not in this case!!
Yup. The chance of you abiding by a specific law, is embodied in the following universal formula.
Adherence = (Perceived chance of getting caught * Perceived penalty) / Perceived benefit
Nothing to do with good people standing up against bad laws...
|
One of the comments in this article is priceless regarding concentrating on the road means you don't see the road signs ! =:-O
What is this woman doing, literally staring at the road surface in front of her car to the exclusion of everything else ?
|
And I wholeheartedly agree with you FT.
There are enough speed limit signs on the approach to motorway roadworks, so there is no excuse in 'not being familiar' with the area.
Pat
|
I came through these roadworks last week and they actually had a sign up at the side stating along the lines of "5000 speeding drivers caught so far". I just assumed it was scaremongering.
However when you approach roadworks and see "50" signs, camera signs, fluorescent cameras on poles and lines across the road, em, why do these drivers not see the clues??
I agree it can sometimes take a nerve of steel to sit at 50mph when everyone else seems to know better and you have someone breathing down your neck but its worth it not to get the 3 points!
|
>> I agree it can sometimes take a nerve of steel to sit at 50mph when
>> everyone else seems to know better and you have someone breathing down your neck but
>> its worth it not to get the 3 points!
Darn right, Bobby. I'm not going to risk getting three points just so that the oik in the car behind me can get where he's going a few seconds earlier.
So there :-)
|
"a nerve of steel to sit at 50mph"
But how often do driver's sit at 48 through roadworks, and in the centre lane too, when all around them is empty? Or. worse still, in the outside lane at 45, thinking how good they are, saving the rest of us from ourselves?
I really have NO problem myself - I stick on the cruise control and use the inside lane when I can - to keep out of the speedsters way. (Having said that, I have recently got a NIP for speed, but not through roadworks, where enforcement is really fairly common these days)
Ahhh...back on familiar territory with this one I think :-)
|
The unfortunate truth is that gatso and specs cameras in roadworks increase accidents rather then reduce them according to the Transport Research Lab. If you want to reduce accidents then you need regular police presence which reduces accidents by 25% Staffs police have finally cottoned on to this an are patrolling the A500 at high accident risk times. Hopefully they might try and educate drivers to leave more space between vehicles as this is the crucial factor in accident avoidance more than their actual speed as many of the impacts happen around slip roads.
If you make people watch their speed too closely then they start to pay more attention to that than what they should be paying attention to. Most people know their true speed within 5-10mph so enforcement should never be within those amounts so that people can concentrate on the road ahead and roughly comply with the limit. This would be safer all round. In specs and gatso areas traffic bunches much more which is inherently more dangerous than well spaced vehicles. Also if the speed enforcement is too narrow you lose the option to quickly speed up briefly to create space.
What is needed is a long term comparison in work force injury rates per mile of roadworks for enforced and non-enforced limits over the last decade or so. Once knowing this you could see what is working. The trl study was a site comparison so should be reasonably accurate but an increase in workforce injury over time while increased enforcement occurs would be quite a smoking gun for relying on speed enforcement as the only choice.
|
>> The unfortunate truth is that gatso and specs cameras in roadworks increase accidents rather then
>> reduce them according to the Transport Research Lab.
I would like to see the report you quote, and I bet this bold assertion is far from the truth.
|
Actually it is worse than I thought. Figures are for Personal Injury Accidents per vehicle million km
effect on PIAs Road works open motorway
Analogue speed cameras 55% increase 31% increase
Digital speed cameras 4.5% increase 6.7% increase
Police patrols 27% reduction 10% reduction
These percentages are a simple calculation from the TRL data - for example the Analogue speed cameras at road works is:
0.138 / 0.089 = 1.5506 = 55% increase.
TRL report is TRL-595
www.safespeed.org.uk/trl595001.gif this is the table. The report itself costs money still I think.
|
>> These percentages are a simple calculation from the TRL data - for example the Analogue
>> speed cameras at road works is:
>>
>> 0.138 / 0.089 = 1.5506 = 55% increase.
>>
>> TRL report is TRL-595
>>
>> www.safespeed.org.uk/trl595001.gif this is the table. The report itself costs money still I think.
What I don't get about these figures, and Teabelly maybe you could help shed some light, is that the total number of vehicle miles stated to be under camera surveillance (1.6 billion) seems to be over 10 times higher than the number of miles driven without surveillance (140.83 million).
This suggests that the non-camera figures only account for about 8% of miles driven.
Now, I may be interpreting those figures incorrectly but how do they determine which vehicle miles are and aren't covered by camera, and what do those 8% of vehicle miles cover? If they aren't comparable to the other 92%, then this is not comparing like for like.
Have I completely misunderstood these figures?
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Fri 12 Mar 10 at 16:39
|
The accident rates still apply per vehicle million km but as you say the non camera routes are in the minority so to be fair the study should have done more non camera routes to even things out. I'm not a statistician though so couldn't say how much such a small sample could affect the results. There is also no way of knowing which way it would have affected things as a larger sample might have shown an even bigger reduction for non camera routes but we can't know.
The original study was supposed to select motorway lengths with and without roadworks and with and without cameras. Without knowing which lengths were used and when again we can't say for certain they were comparing like with like. I'd hope they were as otherwise it negates the whole purpose of the study!
|
>> The original study was supposed to select motorway lengths with and without roadworks and with
>> and without cameras. Without knowing which lengths were used and when again we can't say
>> for certain they were comparing like with like. I'd hope they were as otherwise it
>> negates the whole purpose of the study!
Yes, although it really is tricky to get this right. The only real way, IMHO, is to take a stretch of road that doesn't have cameras, record the accidents, then add cameras, record the accidents and compare.
Presumably there are plenty of roads that have had cameras fitted, so that they could use the accident data from those. It is not perfect but would seem to be the only real like for like test, but wouldn't really work for temporary roadworks.
Trying to control for the differences between roads, by using large amounts of data, probably isn't going to work, because there are numerous factors, not least that roads with cameras could quite likely have been selected to have cameras because they are, or are considered to be, more dangerous.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Fri 12 Mar 10 at 17:24
|
>> TRL report is TRL-595 (..) The report itself costs money still I think.
It does, £40. I should, however, like to read it all, rather than snippets.
|
I am even more sceptical.
|
I too think the figures teabelly quotes may be a bit on the high side.
But I know speed cameras cause accidents, because I came within an ace of being involved in one - it didn't occur, quite, but was a bit of a moment - on Zero's favourite 50-limited road the A3 Kingston Bypass. A charging white van that didn't know the road and overreacted on seeing one of those cunningly-placed cameras on the insides of bends, or the fuzz in a sliproad or something.
The other thing that seems obvious is that they are a pickpocketing money-grabber. Getting caught by them is your fault all right, but the question remains of why they are there and the way they are used. Road safety has very little to do with it except as a peg to hang the scam on.
|
>> gatso and specs cameras in roadworks increase accidents rather then
>> reduce them according to the Transport Research Lab.
They normally produce interesting reports - can you point me to this one, please?
|
Not sure if fining them goes far enough. Surely they need to be disqualified on medical grounds, if their eyesight is so bad that they can't see the big yellow box. What do they want? A big blue flashing light on top of it?
What? They saw the camera but not the big 50 signs? Well, back to the issue of eyesight, or at least observational skills!
|
I was on the southbound M1 past Luton the other day. 50MPH through the roadworks and then derestricted straight onto four lanes. She sat there in lane three doing about 60, most undertook her.
|
"Went up to Edinburgh last week (A50, M6, A/M74, A 701) and there were 14 sets of roadworks from Stoke to Carlisle, some with 50 mph limits, some without: some with specs cameras and some without. The common feature was that very little work seemed to be going on." (Phil W, in the 'roadworks rant' threat)
I'm not advocating breaking the law, but you can understand people's frustration. Also, there is a speed limit on all motorways - 70 mph - but you don't often see speed cameras enforcing it. Installing them especially for roadworks is largely a combination of fundraising opportunism and sheer spite on the part of anti-motorist councils.
What we need is a limit on the number of roadworks on any one motorway at any given time. Of course we accept the need for periodic resurfacing, but last time I drove up the M6 I didn't get the impression that any of it was urgent.
|
>> I'm not advocating breaking the law but you can understand people's frustration.
Why? As the HA say, the difference between doing 70 and 50 per. over 1/2 a mile is about 10 seconds.
>> Also there is a speed limit on all motorways - 70 mph - but you don't often see
>> speed cameras enforcing it.
Thank goodness for that.
>> Installing them especially for roadworks is largely a combination of fundraising
>> opportunism and sheer spite on the part of anti-motorist councils.
No it isn't. It's for safety reasons. If it was for fundraising, there wouldn't be such good signage - as there is, it's so very good that you can't miss it.
|
Could you paint that camera a brighter colour? I dont think so. What are they - blind?
|
"you can understand people's frustration."
"Why? As the HA says, the difference between doing 70 and 50 per. over 1/2 a mile is about 10 seconds"
10 second over 1/2 mile? Ah yes, that's why when I hit the M25 roadworks clockwise from M40 junction this aft my satnav said I would arrive at Bishops Stortford at 5 pm and I eventually got there at 6.30.
Now, at 10 seconds delay for each 1/2 mile, I make those roadworks 270 miles long......I think.
The main reason people get nicked is (IMHO) is not stupidity but because you don't know where you stand - as I said before "some with 50 mph (and for a small section today 40mph) limits, some without: some with specs cameras and some without" And now some with gatsos - and yes I think I did spot it when I went past the other day.
Here's another question. On M4 today were "average speed cameras" in some roadworks. In middle of roadworks were the services (Membury?? - not sure) and I stopped to refuel and get a coffee which took about 15/20 mins. Now, if they were average speed cameras presumably after my stop I could have rejoined motorway and then done about 200mph in the rest of roadworks and still not been nicked?
I stuck to 50 - had not the vehicle or inclination to test my theory/hypothesis!
|
>> speed cameras enforcing it. Installing them especially for roadworks is largely a
>> combination of fundraising
>> opportunism and sheer spite on the part of anti-motorist councils.
Motorways are run by the Highways Agency; nowt to do with councils
|
"Motorways are run by the Highways Agency; nowt to do with councils."
Yes of course - my mistake and apologies to any councillors on here!
I agree there's no excuse for missing the speed csameras, but my principal objection is to the number of roadworks on motorways at the same time. It isn't just the speed limit: there is always more traffic in roadworks (often due to bunching caused by the speed limits) and all that a lot of us want to do is relax and get on our way.
|
Once again there seems to be a blinkered view about the need for motorway roadwork speed limits.
Take a sideways step here and look at the situation from other road users and the danger the roadworks pose both to them and cars using the stretch.
Roadworks almost always have narrow lanes, and all lorries are then forced to use the hard shoulder and in some cases the nearside lane.
The hard shoulder is notoriously narrow, uneven and can have very bad cambers on it, but add to this, that the nearside lane is also narrowed and you have a potential for disaster with lorries in both of them.
An artic can and does 'wander' considerably when it encounters tramlines in the tarmac, and when crossing a solid white line or even on a bad camber.
Two of these, alongside each other when steering a straight course is in the lap of the Gods, can be scary when mirrors are inches apart. The potential for sisater combined with the lack of a safe haven for any broken down vehicle ( in any lane) is enormous, whether anyone is actually at work in the coned off area or not. 50MPH is plenty fast enough and I'm surprised that anyone can complain about a speed restriction for such a short distance.
Pat
|
the answer is to have a lowish speed limit in m/way road works ONLY when the work force is there...say 50mph
have a 65mph limit, (because the lanes are narrower etc) when the workforce are not there
...and have an 85mph limit the rest of the time on the general m/way (maybe variable for bad weather, like France does).
we've all moved on from the times when the 70mph limit was set
for people not to notice the current cameras in roadworks, just shows how frighteningly unaware some drivers are....but there again, try standing at the scene of an accident at night, in a Bertie Bassett enormous refelctive jacket, with three vehicles with various blue/red lights flashing, placed in sensible warning positions...and STILL watch them ploughing in as usual...quite what has registered on their tiny brains I have no idea, but it looks like an early Christmas tree..in the middle of the road...surely that ought to register surprise if nothing else
or...come up behind them at speed, with the new blue lamps that are issued, which burn your retinas out (so much so, there's a switch to dim them if you have to stand near them for any lenght of time)...you can see the road signs, for a good 600 yards plus, in fornt of you, glowing an alternate bright blue colour and the inside's of their cars lighting up with a big blue aura...and yet they STILL don't notice something's up...what do they think?...overflying spaceship? local house with dicso lights?
|
Yes. I think people get fed up with speed limits left in place with nothing happening. Driving to work this morning on the A52 in Notts, I come across two huge 40mph signs and some yellow Highways Agency signs. Some cones on the verge, nothing on the carriageway and no workmen or vehicles anywhere. People were initially slowing down, then speeding up again. The area is covered by permanent Specs cameras - so has the computer already been reprogrammed from 60mph to 40mph? Here's the best part - I didn't see any roadworks end / 40mph limit cancelled sign! If Highways Agency used temporary speed limits sensibly, people might just take more notice of them!
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 11 Mar 10 at 10:29
|
I've got a rotten cold so I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here for the heck of it.
Is 50 slow enough? If I hit a roadworker at 70 he's dead. If I hit him a quarter of a second later at 50 - he's dead.
Should roadworks be 30 limits, as apparently a child hit at 31 will be mangled beyond recognition, whereas one hit at 29 will laughingly dust themselves down, doff their little cap and be on their way with a merry wink.
Sorry. It's the cold.
|
Crank, I think thats where the whole risk assessment comes in - how likely is there to be an accident in roadworks compared to on a town street in the vicinity of a school.
Although I agree with Westpig above with regards to speed limits, there needs to be an acceptance that we have a huge number of bad drivers on our road. His examples re flashing lights being ignored, speed cameras being ignored back this up.
So if we make the speed limit 65mph through roadworks, unless they are governed by cameras, you will still have ones that will do 90 through them.
Instead of drivers relying on their senses nowadays, we have drivers relying on their sat navs, phones, speed camera warnings etc etc and not enough reliance on eyes, ears and brain.
|
The problem with 50 limits in roadworks is that most HGVs will continue at their limited 56 so you're in their way and they will often squeeze past.
As it happens my car (Mercedes) displays km/h in the dash computer so I can set the speed limiter (or cruise if the traffic is light) for 90km/h and I'm not troubled by HGVs then.
|
You're happy to set your cruise to 56mph in a 50 zone with cameras, BP? The other problem is that, unless the traffic is very light, you get a lot of bunching and jostling in 50 limits. I hate the permanent section of 50 limit on the A1 in north Notts for this reason and artics that won't back off from 56mph are a particular nuisance here. Sorry Pat.
|
Why are they a nuisance to you DF?
If they are, as you say, doing 56MPH they shouldn't be holding you up at all assuming you are doing 50MPH.
It seems we can't win either way:)
And as a deisel fitter you should know that so many firms are now having their vehicle speed reduced to a limited 50-52MPH because it gives such a huge fuel saving across a large fleet.
No need to apoligise BP, I actually disagree in some ways with westpig and feel that HGV's should be reduced to the nearside lane only in any roadworks.
Pat
|
>>Why are they a nuisance to you DF?
In a word, Pat, tailgating. It's not them holding me up in a 50 limit, it's the other way around. My impression (not very scientific) is that the majority of cars stick like glue to an indicated 50, but many truckers don't. Maybe it really is due to over-reading speedos in cars and calibrated ones in trucks. Or maybe truckers know from experience that they won't be ticketed for powering through a 50 limit at a true 56?
Interesting that trucks are increasingly being limited to 50-52. I have a friend in a vehicle hire workshop who says some customers are asking for Transit-type vans to be limited to 70.
|
Like I said, very few do a calibrated 56mph anyway.
When we all got satnavs we found the true max speed was in most cases 52-53MPH. My impression of cars is that they too have poorly (over) calibrated speedometers and tend to be doing around 45MPH thinking they are doing the maximum, but who can blame them?
The speed limit is just that, a limit and not a target!
Transit's limited to 70? Well that should reduce the competition a little bit then:)
Pat
|
>> As it happens my car (Mercedes) displays km/h in the dash computer so I can
>> set the speed limiter (or cruise if the traffic is light) for 90km/h and I'm
>> not troubled by HGVs then.
Is your speed limiter setting accurate? I would have thought that it overread like the speedo, so 90kp/h is more likely to be 85kp/h. And as HGVs' speed limiters are calibrated (I believe), if they were on their limit I would expect you to still be troubled.
Last edited by: Focus on Thu 11 Mar 10 at 09:53
|
A lot of people have suggested this site is subtly different from HJ's. Perhaps it is, but judging by the posts in this thread, especially the ones pointing out that when people are run in for speeding thy have only themselves to blame, it is exactly the same.
Roadwork cones and cages with nothing going on inside them have become one of the themes of modern Britain. Two weeks ago we moved out of a large house after 36 years, with all the clobber and hassle that implies, and some extra owing to my own inefficiency and reluctance to move with the times. Our council was given ample warning and asked for parkers for moving vans etc. Two weeks before our move the whole parking bay was caged in ostensibly for waterworks under the road, third time in two years. The council said sorry, waterworks take precedence.
The cages stayed until after we had moved and after the new owners had moved in. No work of any description was carried out in that time. People often criticise me for swearing all the time but it seems perfectly reasonable to me.
|
"A lot of people have suggested this site is subtly different from HJ's. Perhaps it is, but judging by the posts in this thread, especially the ones pointing out that when people are run in for speeding thy have only themselves to blame, it is exactly the same. "
Armel, I think the difference is that people are saying when you are driving through roadworks with all the associated signing, then you only have yourself to blame. I would daresay the opinion would be different when it comes to unmarked cars, hidden vans etc.
But I agree fully re your roadworks issue. Utility Companies should be controlled better and have to pay a daily fee.
|
>> Is your speed limiter setting accurate?
As best I can tell, from roadside speed signs etc, I think the speedo in my car is pretty accurate.
In any case going a bit nearer to the trucks speed limit means that I'm much less troubled by them than if I stuck firmly to indicated 50, which may well be 47/48 actual.
In the several, and very extensive, M6 roadworks, most traffic seems to move at towards 60 now, with a fair few vehicles going much faster. Rumour has it the average speed camera systems there don't work.
|
>>>>Rumour has it the average speed camera systems there don't work. <<<<
Rumour has it that if you keep changing lanes it doesn't work, but I don't believe that one either:)
Pat
|
>>Rumour has it the average speed camera systems there don't work.
I remember someone posting on HJBR that only some of them are actually monitored, but even the contractors don't know which ones are live.
And it used to be said that there was a tolerance of 10% + 2mph, which would be 57mph in a 50 limit, but is that still true?
|
I think part of the problem nowadays is we are bombarded with signs saying 'Speed Limit to protect workforce' and 'Police speed camera', yet a lot of the roadworks I drive through I rarely see any workforce actually there. And often the speed cameras are there.
Lets face it, on most roadworks the workforce are conspiciously absent. By friday afternoon they're generally gone for the weekend, yet the limits stay in place.
I'm not saying the speed limits are wrong, just you can appreciate the apathy this causes after years of driving.
|
I think someone recently mentioned a very valid point in another thread re roadworks.
Although there may be no one working there, its not to say that someone might not be along in half an hour , or a sub contractor will be along to do the lighting / drainage etc.
I can see why they just insist on a blanket limit rather than altering it at different times / days etc which would just lead to confusion.
|
What BobbyG said!!
And added to that there'd need to be constant moving of cones, roadsigns etc. Not saying it's perfect or that they could not do more faster but work inevtiably involves people/teams carrying our tasks sequentially.
|
>> And it used to be said that there was a tolerance of 10% + 2mph
That's what the ACPO gudelines allow. tinyurl.com/ydu85dd
|
I think I can safely say that only a few sets of SPECS cameras actually work. The giveaway is the ones that DO work, they are no having to light up at night, because the IR does not actually provide any illumination.
and as far as
>pointing out that when people are run in for speeding thy have only themselves to blame
Thats a perfectly valid statement. Anyone who gets *caught* speeding deserves all they get. The rest of us speed sensibly and with attention.
|
>>>>The rest of us speed sensibly and with attention.<<<<
I shall remember that tomorrow and advise my students of how to be a good lorry driver:)
Pat
|
>> Thats a perfectly valid statement.
Of COURSE it is. What I was hinting at was the dull banality of people saying something that is obvious to a mentally defective five-year-old, smugly and accusingly, over and over again. That was what had a touch of the HJs.
|
Well its the ONLY response to people going on about money grabbing speed cameras, specially those that stick out like a bright red zit on the face of a miss world contestant.
|
I remember the happy times long ago before lorries were fitted with speed limiters.
I used to leave Walkers Crisps at Leicester at midnight and could be on the farm at Treen near Lands End by 6.15am waiting to load up again.
That was before Fraddon was bypassed too!
It was wonderful sound to hear a V8 engine working with you and there wasn't anymore accidents than than there is now, but most of all driving was still something to be mastered and enjoyed.
Pat
|
Anyone caught passing a bright yellow camera while going through roadworks with speed limit signs all over the place has indeed contributed to a clandestine revenue raising measure...but it is a tax on stupidity, not on motorists.
|
>> before lorries were fitted with speed limiters
>> be on the farm at Treen near Lands End by 6.15am
Before they were fitted with tachos either by the sounds of it Pat?!
|
>> I remember the happy times long ago before lorries were fitted with speed limiters.
A very old retired traffic policeman told me lorry speed limits used to be 20MPH, and he used to book them at 25MPH. Don't know when that was, though.
|
My sister got caught by this as well (62 mph). Funnily enough no one had any sympathy! Bet she trundled through at an indicated 70 mph and is now regretting it.
There are a few strange sets of roadworks on the M4 which are coned off, have people working in them, cameras in place, but no speed limit or camera signs. Came through at about 3am at GPS 70ish and just slowed down for the bits with workers. Far more civilised, and I sincerely hope the cameras were turned off!
Still, if no sign says 50 I assumed that the 70 limit still applied... :-)
|
Did anyone else hear the guy from ABD respond to this on 5Live drive (Thu?).
Basically he kept repeating a mantra that, if the speed limit were set below the 85th centile (the speed 85% of motorists would travel in the absence of a limit) then compliance would be poor. No concession to other factors, just go by the 85th centile. When challenged he just kept repeating it more loudly and in an increasingly irritated tone.
Not a good advert for his organisation.
|
>> Did anyone else hear the guy from ABD respond to this on 5Live drive (Thu?).
>>
>> Basically he kept repeating a mantra that if the speed limit were set below the
>> 85th centile (the speed 85% of motorists would travel in the absence of a limit)
>> then compliance would be poor. No concession to other factors just go by the 85th
>> centile. When challenged he just kept repeating it more loudly and in an increasingly irritated
>> tone.
>>
>> Not a good advert for his organisation.
Guy is either an idiot who has just learnt a single "fact" or, probably more likely, doesn't want to give other factors or discussions the time of day, in case they don't fit with the conclusion he wants.
Makes me wonder what speed drivers would drive if there were no limits. What would others feel comfortable with on motorways, for example (assuming good conditions)?
|
The 85% is the most sensible amount to set a limit at. The safest drivers are those that actually drive a little bit faster than the 85% speed. The most dangerous are both those that drive way above the safest speed and those that travel at way below. The more you criminalise people for travelling at a speed which is illegal according to an arbitrary limit and quite often perfectly safe the less they are going to respect any speed limit.
The more you set limits too low the greater the number of people will ignore them. Previously law abiding drivers are now ignoring quite a few 'silly' limits as authorities have just been lowering them for no good reason in a lot of areas. If you are finding people that used to criticise friends/partners/collegues etc for speeding becoming 'speeders' you know you have gone too far.
If you set the town centre speed limit to 100mph you wouldn't suddenly find everyone driving at 99mph. It can only be up to the driver to manage their risk at any one time on the open road. You cannot absolutely say any speed is always safe or that exceeding a limit by anything other than a wide margin will always be dangerous.
A safe speed for an unlimited motorway would depend on many factors. Weather, traffic levels, visibility, nature of vehicle, condition of driver, condition of road. The design speed of most motorways is in excess of the 70 limit anyway.
|
You may indeed decide that a certain limit is too low. But that doesn't give you cause to complain if you get caught exceeding it as you were aware what it was and you knowingly broke it.
I dare say there are many men who think the age of consent is too high and could cite a lower age in many other countries, but...
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Sat 13 Mar 10 at 19:53
|
>> It can only be up to the driver to manage their risk at any one time on the open road.
That assumes, of course, that the average driver has a sufficient feel for the real risks of the speeds they are driving at. I would venture that, in fact, people are very poor at judging risk in most situations, and are probably no better at doing it when driving.
People ignore detailed research all of the time, and replace it with their own wisdom gained from much less extensive data.
Just human nature I guess.
Also, I still don't buy the argument that people ignore speed limits, just because they think they are "bad" laws - I think it is more that they ignore them when they think they can get away with it, and when the penalty for getting caught isn't too severe.
|
>> That assumes of course that the average driver has a sufficient feel for the real
>> risks of the speeds they are driving at. I would venture that in fact people
>> are very poor at judging risk in most situations and are probably no better at
>> doing it when driving.
The only way anyone is going to be any good at risk perception, is 'practice makes perfect'...and no British driver is going to achieve that with increased nanny stateism.
Which is why so many people sit up the 'ariss of a bus when it stops, rather than overtake it...they are quite simply not used to overtaking, so are not prepared to do it, even if it has completely stopped...(and will usually position themselves in such a manner that no one else can get past either).
or...why people pull out for overtakes on a m/way without looking in the mirrors properly...( 2 or 3 occasions of a Porsche bearing down at 120mph would ensure the mirror was used properly the 4th time).
or..(name your moan)
We are increasingly dumbing down our drivers and failing to encourage them to make their own risk assessments..to the point...many just follow the herd.... which is all very well, but when an emergency occurs they're helpless, because they're not used to reacting to anything other than the sanitised norm.
P.S. I'm not advocating a 120mph free for all either, as that would be inherently dangerous...just a happy medium.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sun 14 Mar 10 at 16:02
|
>> venture that in fact people are very poor at judging risk in most situations
People are actually extremely good at judging risk, which is why there are relatively few crashes. However, there are lots of people....
|
Teabelly, you are the ABD man and ICMFP.
Seriously, the 85th centile is probably as good a starting point as any to determine a limit. However, the 85% may include many people with poor observation and, where work is in progress, there may be hazards even the most observant will not anticipate. The latter is particularly relevant where the idea that "you never see anybody working in roadworks" is given currency by the media etc.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 13 Mar 10 at 21:39
|
The 85th percentile has been the speed limit setting guide for donkeys years. It is based in sound observation so there should be no reason to mess with it.
The ABD is a load of old blokes. I'm neither!
|
Teabelly,
I agree the 85th centile is a good guide, but it needs to be influenced by other factors as well. ABD man's line was that it was the B all and end all.
|