Safe Speed Forums

I've been mulling this over for a few days and I think I'm onto something. I often have to describe why I regard speed cameras as dangerous, but it's not easy and I usually give trivial examples like: it's more important to look out of the windscreen than it is to look at the speedo.

But I'm working towards a better presentation of a better argument in a small enough number of words. It goes like this:

Almost all crashes are caused by shortfalls in road user skills or attitudes. Speed cameras diminish skills and worsen attitudes. We shouldn't be surprised that they make worse drivers who crash more.

Any comments?

Anyone else want to have a go at crystalising the 'speed cameras are dangerous' argument?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Speed cameras cause drivers to spend disproportionate amounts of time looking at their speedos. This lost time loses lives.

It isn't immediately obvious to me that "Speed cameras diminish skills and worsen attitudes" without more explanation / justification.

If I wanted to oppose your statement, I would argue along the lines that speed cameras improve attitudes because they force people to become accustomed to driving at an appropriate speed. This is assuming that speed limits are set correctly of course, as genuine limits, not targets to aim for as they seem to be at present. If speed limits were genuine limits, i.e. exceeding them always constituted an inappropriate speed, then it would be difficult to argue that people should be allowed to exceed them. Thus I see your argument as more being against inappropriate limits than speed cameras, because it is only in the context of inappropriate speed limits that cameras will have the effects you describe.

Speed cameras focus drivers' minds on speed. And not just speed, but the speed limit. "Am I driving too fast for conditions?" and "Am I driving too slow for the traffic?" have been replaced by, "Am I within the limit?".
And drivers' attention has been diverted away from the all-important scanning for hazards to scanning for cameras, vans and speed limit signs.
Not to mention too much attention being focused on the rear bumper of the car in front - because of the inevitable bunching effect of speeds too low for road conditions.

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Again, this is only within the context of limits that aren't genuine limits. If driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions always meant that you're within the speed limit, and exceeding the speed limit always meant that your speed is inappropriate, this problem would not occur.

If limits were properly set then most drivers would, at most times, not even get close to them - so this wouldn't be an issue.

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

But it's impossible to set limits in such a way, as the appropriate speed for a situation varies from day-to-day, from hour-to-hour, and from second-to-second, depending on the conditions at the exact moment a driver is passing there, along with his/her vehicle's capabilities, etc.

As Peter says, if we were to set a limit such that anyone exceeding it would automatically be in danger, regardless of conditions, this limit would be far too high 95% of the time. Similarily, setting a limit such that anyone under it could be guaranteed to be safe would be somewhere in the region of 2mph, and even then I can't honestly say if that is literally 100% safe.

Limits, where they used to be seen as a guide to the road conditions and what a sensible speed, given the right conditions, would be, have now become an absolute safety barrier. Anyone driving within the speed limit, be they on the phone, no hands on the wheel, having not slept for two days, is automatically seen as a safe driver; and anyone exceeding the speed limit by as much as 2mph, even when said speed is safe for the conditions, is a reckless, dangerous driver.

So I'd say that speed cameras are changing the way speed limits are seen, in a very dangerous and negative way.

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

Hello Mike[F], long time no 'see'.

Hi Rigpig, and the others who have mentioned my sudden return! Am back from university till October, so you should see more of me around until then. Glad to see things are still running smoothly here!

Hopefully if there's some of my loan left at the end of the holidays I'll finally be able to become an SS member!

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

But you're viewing a speed limit here as a target to aim for. If a speed limit is a true limit, i.e. the speed above which it is guaranteed your speed is inappropriate, then it is of no consequence that conditions vary, because if you have to reduce your speed to cater for conditions, your speed will still be below the speed limit, so you're still within the law.


It would only be too high if it were seen as a target speed to aim for, rather than a limit. For example, you could have 3 speeds on each sign - a limit above which you are automatically prosecuted, e.g. 140mph on a motorway. A suggested speed that most people in an average car can safely drive at in average conditions, perhaps 80mph for a motorway. And a minimum speed below which you are automatically prosecuted if there is nothing obstructing you from going faster, perhaps 50mph on a motorway.


Not true - I'm sure many people are convicted of DWDC&A when driving below the speed limit. If speed limits were genuine limits, then exceeding the speed limit by 2mph wouldn't be a safe thing to do.

There's a lot of wisdom coming out in this post - unusally so in one so young. Welcome back Mike. It's good to see you again.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

To elaborate a little on my suggested scheme of 3 speeds on each sign, you could also have a shift in burden of proof based on speed, e.g. in the example I gave, if you had an accident between 50 and 80mph, the prosecution would have to prove you were driving dangerously, but between 80 and 140mph, the driver would have to prove they weren't.

Such a limit is pretty much irrelevant, especially when taking motorways into account.



In my view, this can only lead to confusion. And saying '140' is a speed above which you are automatically dangerous is no better than saying that being over 70 is automatically dangerous. There would be a group of drivers who would spend their time sat at 138, eyes glued to the speedo to make sure they didn't risk breaking the law... And I think a minimum speed of 50mph for a motorway is unrealistic, and prosecuting for it is even more so. I think that a 'speed limit' of 80-90 is not a bad idea for a motorway, if it is enforced by police officers who are well placed to judge whether creeping up to 110 on a deserted stretch at 2am is really dangerous driving. I would argue that the crime of speeding should be much less rigorously enforced, if not abolished altogether, and instead we should see a lot more prosecutions for dangerous driving - part or all of which may be driving too fast for the conditions. Of course this is judgemental and harder to secure a conviction for, so will never happen.



Sorry, I was meaning in terms of the public/media perception. I'm sure most traffic police are well aware of what's safe and what's dangerous, but most people would consider someone driving at 75 on NSL DC to be akin to child murderers, whilst they tootle along at 65, secure in the knowledge that they are driving totally safely.

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

Unfortunately, I think you are probably correct, and some people would drive along at 138 like that. Of course, this wouldn't mean they couldn't be prosecuted for doing so, just that prosecution wouldn't be automatic. Let me state what I see as the requirements for a legal framework:
1. Safe driving should never be an offence.
2. A reasonably skilled driver should, without too much difficulty, be able to drive in a way that means they are guaranteed freedom from prosecution.
3. It should be possible to prosecute unsafe drivers, even if their driving does not result in an accident.

I'm sure there are more, but these will do for now. At present, 1 isn't satisfied, because most people think there are some roads, in some conditions, where driving above the speed limit is safe, yet to do so is illegal. 2 isn't satisfied, because many skilled drivers find limits inappropriately low and difficult to adhere to. 3 is possible, however doesn't happen much in practice.

Unfortunately it is often difficult to identify "unsafe driving" until it results in an accident.

However, I would suggest that (3) is achieved on most occasions when a trafpol of the likes of our members here uses his judgment to pull someone for speeding. It is also achieved in the vast majority of non accident related drink-driving prosecutions.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

No argument from me on the point that cameras have at best failed to improve things and have probably made things worse overall. But I think you should be wary of the temptation to present a simplified argument. For one thing you'll never get as simple as the opposing argument - "Speed Kills". As far as simplicity goes their argument will trump yours even though it's crap. Simplicity is their long suit, accuracy isn't. For another thing, does the presentation of simplified arguments help get across the point that road safety in general, and crashes in particular, are full of complexities? If a simple argument was a "foot in the door" that made more people consider the complex nature of the subject then I'd be all for it, but I'm not sure it really is. IMO the soundbite approach you've been going for for a while is likely to serve as a better foot in the door, and what you call a "trivial example" may not be as trivial in the long term if the driving public starts to think about it more as a result of hearing something like "it's more important to look out of the windscreen than it is to look at the speedo".

Just to be clear, I'm not worried that Safe Speed will fall into the trap of over simplification. Just that the Safe Speed message will find it hard to compete with the messages of those who have already fallen into the trap of over simplication.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

That is an inescapable problem with speed limits in general, and I don't see a practical solution to it, though it is less of a problem with limits in built up areas where the choice of limit should generally be between 30 or 40 mph. I would have little quarrel with that if the limits were to be applied sensibly, as they used to be prior to the past few years.

To my mind the most intractable problem with speed limits arises in open road situations where the NSL of 60 or 70 mph applies. In relation to the range of conditions to be encountered these limits are no use at all in guiding drivers to a safe choice of speed. Admittedly the system is simple, but what is the use of a simple system if it does not work?

Best wishes all,
Dave.

To get back onto the original question, some simple statements I've thought of:

"Speed kills - remain stationary at all times" (as a tongue in cheek derision of the simplistic "speed kills" message)

"Look out for pedestrians, not speed cameras"

"Check what is going on around you, not your speedo"

There are some examples of simple messages that have been promoted by the government that do have value, of course, such as the "tiredness kills" message.

edited

edited