h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Motorways are the safest roads that we've got."

it's really true Mina. it's true the high speeds create terrific kinetic force, but since the accidents generally involve cars moving in roughly the same direction, there's not nearly the danger as on A roads, where cars can meet head-on, or get hit as they pull off of side roads...

Just goes to show how statistics can confuse

The number of deaths and injuries per mile travelled on motorways and dual carriageways is less than on other roads. Even when they do happen they're not always as nasty as you might think because the traffic is moving in the same direction - imagine a head-on crash happening on an A road where the speed limit is 60mph - that's a combined speed of 120mph. And there are no pedestrians on motorways.

I'll trust you both in that case.

Test.

I posted this on the "News Thread" and it reminded me of this one from when I first joined hootoo.

"I always think in respect of speeding that there are really two issues that get (IMO) incorrectly conflated.

One is an issue of whether or not speed limits are set correctly in many places?

Another is whether is is right or not to enforce the speed limit that has been set.

On the first I think that clearly there are many places where the speed limits are manifestly wrong and unreasonable and should be changed. There seems in many respects to be little flexibility or control over this whatever the evidence shows.

This leads to the second being discredited. Wrongly in my opinion I just cannot see how it is wrong to enforce trhe law, if people beleive a law is wrong cmapaign for it to be changed don't bitch about it's enforcement.

FB"

I started driving in Lancashire some 3 years ago, and have the points on my licence to prove it.

Speed limits are enforced in Lancashire. Speed cameras have film in them. The police regularly use vans on roads where people are tempted to speed.

As a result, the majority of drivers obey the speed limit and even those who would like to speed are less likely to tailgate you or be aggressive if you obey it.

I have no idea whether this policy means there are fewer or less severe accidents, but it certainly makes driving more pleasant. I miss it, now that I am annoying everyone between Glasgow and Edinburgh by foolishly and fecklessly obeying the speed limit.

So you're the bugger sitting doing 70 on the M9's fast lane

Remember when the mayor of Swindon decided to disable the spped cameras, saying that they're purely revenue machines and don't do anything for road safety? He was spot on:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1268392/Town-scrapped-speed-cameras-sees-increase-accidents.html

So much the better. As anyone knows who's seen the news in the past year, we can do with a few more revenue raisers.

Anyhow, their primary purpose is to catch people breaking the law*, like other surveillance cameras. Are there any studies that show they are useless at that?

*And, arguably, act as a deterent - but that relies on them being able to catch people.

Most of the time you have to be going really bloody fast to get caught. Our local speed camera won't clock you until you're doing 82 mph

Well they must catch quite a few if they are, indeed, revenue gatherers.

Can anyone point to an example of a speed limit being raised by public demand?

I'd be happy for speed cameras to have the money ring-fenced to an area. For example, if the money paid for new schools in Aberdeenshire or disabled facilities in Kent. If this was done transparently, I think motorists wouldn't be too unhappy about it. I think this is what happens in the US. I'm sure I saw a road sign in Georgia that said something about speeding drivers contributing x thousand dollars to County funds.

What I do mind is that when speed cameras started to become more common, councils had to employ staff to deal with the huge number of tickets generated. At first it was just the same people who handled parking tickets but the sheer numbers soon meant councils had to create a dedicated department. After a while though, as the cameras altered driver's behaviour (or the drivers learnt the camera sites), revenue started to fall. Now the one thing councils hate is to lay staff off, so it became incumbent upon them to maintain the revenue stream which meant more cameras and more frequent re-siting.

This has led to the ridiculous situation in Aberdeenshire where the vast majority of cameras are on the high traffic routes (which tend to be relatively safe dual carriageways) whilst the truly dangerous roads like the A947, A98, A95 have very few cameras but dozens of fatalities each year.

I don't think it's entirely unreasonable for me to object to fines being used to pay staff to issue fines.

KB - they're not a deterrent. It's entirely possible to lose your licence on one trip between Dundee and Aberdeen and to be totally unaware of this until the letters drop through your letterbox two weeks later.

And of course they're called "Safety Cameras". Why then are the authorities trying to ban sat navs which warn of the locations?

I don't feel those are unreasonable points - but to be honest, I think the same could be said about all money raised by the government. Other than the three-steps-removed, imperfect process of "vote for the people who agree most with you, are likely to be elected, and are likely to stick to what they say", we have little control over where the money raised is spent.

But that's something that goes right to the heart of how government works - it's much bigger than speed cameras.

As I said - the deterrent argument is arguable. But deterrents can work that way, anyway. It's perfectly possible to commit murder, think you've got away with it, and be arrested two weeks later. The 'deterrent' idea of any punishment is supposed to work on a society-wide level, largely to deter those other than the people caught. They've already done the deed, after all.

But is it possible to accidentally commit murder? Three or four times?

The problem with cameras is they only modify behaviour after conviction. Would we find it acceptable to abandon having police on the streets and rely on CCTV?

The number of traffic police has fallen drastically - to something like 20% of pre-camera levels. But a camera can't spot a drunk driver, or a bad driver, or a dangerous load on a lorry, an un-roadworthy car etc. It also can't make allowances. It is set at the limit plus 10%. Traffic cops are encouraged to use discretion - often a warning and a telling-off is enough to deter a driver who has strayed over the limit accidentally. Treating drivers as humans rather than criminals is surely better?

In every other field of crime, it has been shown that education and varied sentencing is more effective than mandatory penalties. It is very rare for a first offender to be prosecuted - very rare indeed unless it is a serious crime. And for run-of-the-mill crimes, there often has to be a lot of repeat behaviour before a conviction. But motorists are always guilty and always dealt with in the same way - 3pts and £60. Why should a normally law-abiding driver be dealt with far more harshly than a habitual criminal?

>>The problem with cameras is they only modify behaviour after conviction<<

Err, no. There's also all the people that don't speed because of the camera.

Well said, swl.

All accidents are caused by driver error and most accidents aren't caused by speeding either (too tired to grab stats but they're out there on t'interwebz). Therefore, more traffic police means more idiot drivers weaving through the lanes while they chat on their mobiles and numpties holding everyone up on dual carriageways/motorways doing 45 being dealt with. It's this sort of behaviour that causes driver frustration and subsequently accidents, but there's no money to be made in making auld Mrs McKenzie pootling along slowly in the fast lane.

"But motorists are always guilty and always dealt with in the same way"



See thread title.

Good one KB.

>>All accidents are caused by driver error<<

So if I'm driving along the road (at the speed limit) and a child runs out in front of me and I swerve and crash into a fence, this is driver error?


>>and most accidents aren't caused by speeding either (too tired to grab stats but they're out there on t'interwebz).<<

Maybe, but I bet fatalities and serious injury have a correlation with speed that can't be ignored.