Safe Speed Forums

I don't think there is an onslaught Paul. Which is the main difference between this forum and the C+ forum.

You're right - it's too strong a word (having just looked it up! ).

How about 'being outnumbered' then? Although that's probably an understatement. Congrats anyway to Dondare.

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

There are three roads into Barnet. One has a camera on it and traffic keeps to the speed limit and this road "feels" safe; to cross, walk beside, cycle or drive on. The other two have no cameras and speed limits are not adhered to and these roads make you fear for your life. It's not Govt. propaganda that makes speeding traffic intimidating.
So my belief in the helpfulness of cameras comes from my own experience and observation.

It's less than 3 deaths a year, for heaven's sake.
And no-one is killed by pollution from bikes. Air pollution kills something like 40 times as many people as road accidents, and half of those can be attributed to vehicle exhaust.

They should be able to feel safe on the road too. Children find fast-moving motor vehicles particularly intimidating.

I can't really explain your experience. I've certainly never observed the like of it myself. I usually observe erratic driver behaviour in the vicinity of cameras.

Are you really sure you're not responding to a promise of safety rather than an experience of safety?



Actually, I think it probably is. I really can't see any other decent reason for describing traffic as 'speeding'. It's not a word pairing that I would ever have been likely to use.



There's nothing wrong with that, of course, as far as it goes. But we do absolutely have to concern ourselves with genuine safety (i.e. relatively fewer dead people) rather than subjective safety.

[I'm thinking that this post reads a bit pompous - it's not supposed to and it's easier to apologise than to try and reword it. Sorry.]

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

And less than 50 from WVM. And have you seen how many vans there are?



The NHS said 'No way' then promptly had their report buried. However I have a copy: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/nhs_report.pdf

Modern can exhausts are very clean. Most of the trouble comes from big diesels (buses and trucks).

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

What? 6 year olds? Are you serious?

I think you're asking the impossible there. And if it's impossible we have to avoid it rather than attempt to cater for it.

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

Do you know if it is safer though?

Some could say that ‘even the best road would be effectively a shared use carriageway, you can't keep cyclists off them.’ which is obviously an outrageous thing to say, but it is a valid parallel. Besides, you don’t get many pedestrians where vehicles present the greatest risk to cyclists.

Which presents more of an overall net risk on out of city carriageways: vehicles to cyclists on a road or pedestrians to cyclists on cycle paths?


Pavements create conflict points between pedestrians and motorists at junctions.
Roads create conflict points between pedestrians, cyclists and motorists at junctions.
So what is different? Perhaps it's the well-defined boundary offered by these paths?


One of the main arguments of the SS campaign is the current inappropriate allocation of resource. Surely it is far better to have a decent length of well-designed cycle lane than a £40k Gatso, the latter being unable to affect the severity or probability of 95% of all crashes, as well as providing a means of distraction for a driver?

You have described how speed cameras can actually be dangerous.

In one case the other road user will give total consideration to the surrounding situation. In the other the other road user feels safer and may not give as much consideration to the situation, so leading to an increased risk of danger, especially if the camera is largely ineffective – which they are! They do not affect the severity or probability of at least 95% of all crashes.

Important to credit the right looney tune: it was Ravingbint's idea. Silly little tartlet

They drive more slowly on this road, so as not to be fined or collect points on their licences. This really does make it easier to cross on foot, and it's used by cyclists. Where there isn't room to overtake drivers wait, which they are less inclined to do if it means slowing down from 60 rather than 40. If motorists have to apply a little bit of extra concentration to avoid going above 40 (with 6mph leeway) then the lack of hastle experienced by everyone else, including those motorists who really don't mind going at that speed, makes it worthwhile. This is the road with the camera. The others have flowers tied to a lampost.

Would the pedestrians crossing the road have benefited more from use of a zebra crossing or pedestrian traffic light instead of the speed camera?

Well, not 16 times as many vans as bikes.

Possibly, if they bothered using the things. A pedestrian was killed on Barnet Hill (which doesn't have a camera) just a few yards away from a crossing. I don't know how it happened, but I know how fast they drive up that hill.

I've seen very young children cycling on the quieter roads, with their parents of course. They're learning the right way to use a bike and the right way to behave on the roads.

Factor in time/distance of use and you should be there!

If a road feels safer because it is safer, that does not make it more dangerous. If you claim that perceived safety leads to carelessness leads to increased danger, then it's impossible to prove that any measure will help; driver behaviour will change in a way that negates any change in the driving environment. (This by the way, is exactly what some people do say.)

And factor out time spent on roads with no pedestrians on them.
How about comparing the number of accidents involving WVM on motorways with the number of accidents involving cyclists on motorways?