Safe Speed Forums

Some call me an idealist - yes I'll confess I am.

So if something's not happening then we should strive to make it happen if it's what we believe in.

Your issues about more plod - we all agree on that but probably differ on how this should be financed. I think the offenders should pay - those who speed or otherwise infringe the RTA. Speed cameras are a useful tool and should be deployed.

"Motorists already contribute something like £45bn each year, more if you include the part of your council tax that goes to the local force"

The first part I disagree with... the motorist does not pay the full cost of their activities and damage to the environment and I can produce figures to show this just as I'm sure a certain spin merchant will now produce figures to the contrary but we've all heard the arguments before.

The second part I can't follow. Where do those of us who don't drive but pay council taxes fit in? I'll happily pay for law and order enforcement but don't see why I should pay for traffic management and policing for the benefit of motorists. Before someone jumps up & down.... I believe cyclists should pay a tax, be examined, insured and registered with visible identification......I cycle and obey the law.

Come now, you really can't deploy that argument! We all have areas of council services that we don't use in a direct sense - elderly people don't go to school, I don't need a care home yet, some people NEVER vist a library, etc etc etc.

However, you DO benefit from traffic mangement in all sorts of ways - from the bus services that I guess you use using the road infrstructure, the cops, fire service and ambulances using that same infrastructure, the delivery drivers getting things to your shops and so on. The whole point of council tax - indeed of ALL taxation - is that it is collective payment by society for the services that the whole of society depends upon. And without it we'd all be the poorer.

_________________
Keep right on to the end of the road ...

This is a very old argument - but if you include indirect "environmental" costs you also need to include indirect benefits.

What is it worth to society to transport goods on lorries rather than packhorses?

Also remember than no alternative would be cost-free either. "No transport at all" isn't a viable option.

_________________
"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

This is not a permanent reduction, just a temporary one for roadworks. A lot of motorists (including former Chief Inspector Longsden) have been caught by a Gatso which had been recalibrated to 30 before the proper signing was in place. Indeed there was still a 40 repeater visible right in front of it.

They've set up an e-mail action network and are holding out for the cases to come to court.

Of course the Scamera partnership are trying their usual bullying tactics, but I'd like to bet if the accused have the courage of their convictions and hold out the cases will be dropped before they come to court.

_________________
"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

George the decorator, you're basingberk, aren't you?

Excuse me? I thought cameras were there to slow people down and reduce accidnts? You're basically saying the camears do no good at all at improving the roads, they are simply there to collect cash for other things.

One problem with that George .... we are dealing with our Tone, Johnny Two Jags, Blunderbus who introduces iniatives without listening to those actually doing the job - and who ideally want us out of our cars



I do not like paying my taxes either (I pay taxes to pay myself ). I would love to be paid the Mad Doc's income - but he is much brainier than me..... - I studied Maths and Physics at Uni Did toy with the idea of teaching - but rejected that on the grounds that I would receive the same kind of cheek and assaullts, earn less, not be allowed to lock up the little hooligans. Even those nice long hols is no compensation ....

I also considered something "steady" like chartered accountancy - but came to conclusion that although it would enable me to purchase the dream set of wheels - would not really be able to drive it as God intended that car to be driven.... so I decided to be a copper on the basis that this would enable me to drive fast cars, wear a silly hat and be able to say "Jack Regan style" - "Shat it yer NIPPED!" and scoff doughnuts.

Apart from that - cannot see myself somehow as an accountant......... though you would be surprised how many of these we nick on those motorbikes .....



Unfortunately, George... our nice middle class lads and lasses pay up, grumble, but do not normally ask questions. Last year's fiasco on the M4 is a case in point. This is common knowledge as it has been debated and picked on across all the fora... But the S Wales wallies placed a speed camera to enforce a tempo at roadworks. Only they placed it incorrectly and nicked thousands of perfectly legal drivers. Only those who challenged got the fine refunded and the points removed from their licences. There was no announcement to recall people pinged by this camera - and it would have been so easy to establish guilt. Those above 79 mph were liable to prosecution under guidelines and those below should have been notified and licence restored.

Those people - George - who were unfairly convicted of this offence by camera - will be get a loading on insurance for 5 years - and if they are really unlucky - those 3 points can mean all the difference if they get to tot up stage.

In fact - you could argue they contribute more to the collective insurance pool of available funds by increased premiums anyway.

And - does it make any of these people a safer driver?

Given the resentments at being copped by a machine and not by me ... not really improving a driving standard....




All our taxes go into the big melting pot - and we collectively pay for all the services such as we get.... Too much of this is wasted on MPs' and councillors' salaries, pension contributions and expense claims - and this is where they could save money to provide more necessary jobs in police/emergencies, education and nursing..... public transport ... the stuff we really need .....

Of course - we get the "I pay your wages" and "Go catch some real criminals - you waste of space - coppa!" - um - these people (mostly) are the ones who do not pay council taxes - because we pay it for them via their welfare benefits...




Er - someone who does not drive gets attacked in their own home.... they diall 999 and we speed to get there asap.. (I know the press stories ....but you never read of the majority we actually do deal with promptly .. )

Your house is on fire? A drunk pedestrian knocks you off your bike? Your kids' schooling? Libraries? Parks? Local Publc Swimming baths?

George - all of these are provided by all council tax payers for the benefit of the community whether or not they drive a car or ride a bike or - like the Mad Doc - do both. (OK so both he and Wildy do ride a motorbike on odd occasions He rides a Cruiser type and she has a Sports one I now have bad visions of that lass and the new baby ..... )

Also - you are using the roads as a pedestrian and cyclist. You benefit from the collective payment of taxes because that taxation paid for the tarmac, the paint markings, the road signs, traffic lights, island, bollards, lighting... and the goods you purchase in the supermarket arrived by road as well.

All those drivers go to work, their earnings feed the economy and add to the nation's overall wealth - which again enables you to purchase the goods and services you require - plus the odd luxury,

think I might just have hacked it in accountancy - did Economics as one of me A Levels (when A Levels were A Levels! )

Traffic police ensure that all adhere to the rules that the aforementioned road signs require..

So you do benefit from the input to road safety by traffic police here. So you contribute to the collective good along with everyone else.

Beautifully summed up, More plod (lots), agreed. But I do disagree on financing. Having the offender pay is no bad thing in principle, but in practice we have the hypothecation scheme which means that the people who collect are the people who do the trapping. This creates an incentive to use, shall we say borderline tactics to widen the net. Of course, they're not on 10% or anything like that (just as well or things would be a lot worse) - the incentive is simply job security. But as soon as any incentive creeps in objectivity is at risk. Do we stick the Talivan at a point where it really is dangerous to speed but only a dozen or so people speed there each week, or do we stick it on a mile long straight section of dual carriageway with a 50 limit and no foot traffic where hundreds speed every day, and which also offers a handy bush to park behind? Of course the pratnerships will go for the location which will best justify their existence by showing how big the probelm is. Well, they all have to earn a living too, I expect I'd do the same in their shoes. We must take all normal incentives out of the equation and leave enforcement to people whose motives are vocational rather than justfiying their existence and securing their jobs. For that reason I'd prefer that not even the police themselves get money from fines, at least not directly.

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

Yes, they have no real idea of impact speed, they do not have the facts to do the math's.

In order to determine the impact speed, you need to know:

The speed the vehicle was traveling at.

When the driver reacted to the hazard.

How long the brakes were used & how much pressure was applied.

Plus the effectiveness of the brakes & tyres, that is not a foregone conclusion on any vehicle.



Slowing down to what speed?

we enter an area that is packed full of hazards & reduce to 20 mph say. A vehicle pulls out, and the other driver does not see the hazard, they therefore have an impact speed of 20 mph.

it could easily be 15 mph, 10 mph or 5 mph, all dependant on WHEN & HOW the driver react's to the hazard. It is never a foregone conclusion that the traveling speed has a net impact speed.

It is the drivers reaction, which is such a vast variable, which makes it impossible to dertermine impact speed.

_________________
Steve

Step back a bit and consider what the Ashton Mackay conclusions should look like. We can make very good guesses at a couple of data points on the speed / fatality risk curve.

* No pedestrians would die in a 0 mph impact.
* Almost all pedestrians would die in a 60mph impact.

Whatever way we consider it, the AM curve is going to be in the right ball park isn't it?

As it happens, I believe they used data from accident reconstruction, and as such we probably couldn't expect to get much better (i.e. more accurate) results.



Quite - that's my point.



I agree about the massive contribution of driver reaction.

But we can determine impact speed (post accident) with all sorts of accident reconstruction techniques.

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

No pedestrians would die, if they never put themselves in the way of a vehicle, which is the root cause of the problem, Pedestrians



No, not as they have guessed how the driver reacted, which is the only possible scenario.




Reconstruction of vehicle layouts & pedestrian position will not tell us impact speed. A vehicle at 60 mph with an alert driver, can have the exact same impact speed as a driver at 20 mph, not paying attention to hazards.



They like to think they can, however there is no possible way. Not even the driver can know the speed of impact.

Their is far tioo much going on, the speedo does not react as fast as the wheels in an emergency stop.

Tyres play a massive role, especially with ABS, the less grip, the more braking pressure is removed by the system, to prevent lock up.

_________________
Steve

We couldn't be more at cross purposes. I believe we agree about everything that matters. Perhaps you need to go back and read again?

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

Hard to believe, I know, but didn't I read somewhere that only 15% of adults pay council tax?!?!?!?

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Sorry if I've missed it, but has anyone posted links to local press reports of the accident that started this thread. I wouldn't like to comment on it without having all the facts at my disposal.

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

George, as a safety, train, cycle and tram supporter, could you clarify the following for me:

1) As trams take several times as far to stop as cars, can't steer round hazards, and are far, far less pedestrian friendly in an accident: how slow should they go?

2) As trains take many, many times as far to stop as cars, can't steer round hazards, and are far, far less pedestrian friendly in an accident, and kill comparable numbers to cars despite being fenced off from the public: how slow should they go?

3) As cycles kill comparable numbers of pedestrians per passenger mile to cars, and even more cyclists per vehicle mile, how slow should they go?

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Not seen a single reference to the accident in local or other press, was completely unaware of it till Dave posted his message, but the van driver was dealt with rather rapidly I thought, considering the accident only happened a couple of months ago.

Is this due to the new 'fast track' system we hear so much about ?


Hanbo.

I'm not George, but I am as much a supporter of public transport systems as I am a supporter of private motoring, and I don't like to see inaccurate comments used to try and discredit either...



Have you ever been on a tram, or seen one, as it performs an emergency stop? Trust me, the only way a car would have a shorter stopping distance than a tram fitted with track brakes (as, I believe, they all are) is if it drove straight into a solid wall. If a tram performs a full emergency stop when you're onboard, you'd better be sat down on a rear-facing seat, or gripping a handrail with all your strength, because otherwise you're going to go flying...

I can't remember where I read it, but I seem to recall some arguments that trams were actually more pedestrian friendly than cars in some scenarios, due to their height and profile - the rounded/tapered noses and flat sides act to "brush" pedestrians aside, and it was only in cases where the pedestrian was hit square by the front of the tram that things got ugly.

I'm not sure I'd fancy driving along a stretch of road shared with tram tracks (came close to it when picking up my car last year from a Croydon dealership, but managed to get out of the area unscathed ) although that's down to unfamiliarity/lack of experience of such a situation, but when I'm in pedestrian mode I'm quite happy to be in a tram-infested part of town. Despite what some people suggest, trams aren't silent (once you know the sounds to listen out for, it's quite easy to detect the approach of a tram over the typical street noises of a town centre - that metallic humming/ringing of steel wheel on steel rail and overhead pickup is sufficiently different from any other normal street noise) and in all the times I've been in a pedestrianised area with trams, their liberal use of warning bells (again, a different-to-the-norm noise) should leave no-one in any doubt that there's a large moving object in the vicinity.

I once tried to look up figures for tram brakes. I'm quite sure that I read that emergency brake operation on trams reached a maximum of 0.2g deceleration. Cars normally manage 0.9g or so.

Can anyone quote facts? I don't have time to research it right now.

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

Yes, I think these either/or debates are unhelpful - both have a role to play.


There are tram tracks for a stretch in Lane 2 of the A6102 Sheffield Outer Ring Road, which is a 40 mph dual carriageway. A bit alarming when you first encounter it, but I would imagine drivers quickly get used to it.

Metrolink in Manchester has very little street running apart from in parts of the city centre where there is restricted car access.

_________________
"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

This is a safety advantage - you know where and when they are going to stop in advance. you know exactly where they are going to go in advance, so this is an advantage. When will you start to list disadvantages? Ha, that's a fine way to say that they are more dangerous! It may be so, but because pedestrians know in advance exactly where they will be going and where they will be stopping, they can predict what will happen far far more easily and there should be far far fewer accidents.

Well, below a certain speed you can't balance on hem, so I guess the limit should be higher than that at least!

_________________
I stole this .sig