Speeding - good news and bad news.

[howardr]

The good news
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2005/07/30/mncam30.xml&sSheet=/motoring/2005/07/30/ixmot.html

The bad news
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2005/07/30/mnblack30.xml&sSheet=/motoring/2005/07/30/ixmot.html

[Biker Biggles]

People think this technology is futuristic and "not in my lifetime" but could'nt be more wrong.It's here and now and just requires a political nudge to implement.There will be no need for archaic cameras when a chip in your vehicle will tell them all they want to know.Shares in KY anyone?

[SVeeedy Gonzales]

Those IBM boxes sound magic - presumably they'll be completely tamper proof so they always give 100% true readings and never let someone speed while a bit of it is disconnected :roll:

I can already see the lines of "black box" hackers gearing up to let people drive at 160+ and have the box list it as 30...

Of course, IBM won't mind since they'll then be able to make a pile of extra cash fighting/chasing them. Who needs to forge money when you can rake it in with junk like this??

[Ping]

The good news
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2005/07/30/mncam30.xml&sSheet=/motoring/2005/07/30/ixmot.html

"This inaccuracy rate can be increased when the laser is trained on the front of a machine and when the rider is wearing black leathers. "

YAY! :D


The bad news
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2005/07/30/mnblack30.xml&sSheet=/motoring/2005/07/30/ixmot.html
Boo.....

[argatxa]

Poor man's fix: maybe covering the box with a layer of lead? (or whatever stops the box from transmiting)

I guess that in UK could be really difficult to implement. If they really want to stop people from speeding they should change the laws so no vehicle can go over the limit.... The automotive industry generates way too much money, it would be like killing the chicken of the golden eggs...

[Anonymous]

The safety implications of such a device would be catastrophic.

[SVeeedy Gonzales]

Poor man's fix: maybe covering the box with a layer of lead? (or whatever stops the box from transmiting)

I guess that in UK could be really difficult to implement. If they really want to stop people from speeding they should change the laws so no vehicle can go over the limit.... The automotive industry generates way too much money, it would be like killing the chicken of the golden eggs...

Ah, you're falling into their trap there - they WANT you to cover the box in lead, so all that extra weight makes you go slower...

[argatxa]

Ah, you're falling into their trap there - they WANT you to cover the box in lead, so all that extra weight makes you go slower...


ouch! got me! ](*,)

[tomjones2]

on the upside it wont be designed to be put on the bike/car at the design stage and like all current speed limiting technolgy - (japanese 100mph french 100bhp) they can be removed.

[Ken McCulloch]

The safety implications of such a device would be catastrophic.
Would the comrade care to elaborate?

[Anonymous]

Dr McCulloch,

It's bad enough today with people being distracted momentarily by speed cameras - but to have everybody _constantly_ focusing on their speedometers and not on the road would lead to a rather obvious disaster.

The government need to learn that speed is blatantly not the primary cause of accidents and stop interfering with our drivers/riders tried and tested methods of prioritising tasks for maximum safety. The whole "speed kills" farce has been disproven time and time again, and it's time they changed the record.

Continuing to prioritise revenue over safety as they do nowadays will bite them hard in the future, mark my words. People are catching on now that it really is a load of cobblers.

[Ken McCulloch]

It's bad enough today with people being distracted momentarily by speed cameras - but to have everybody _constantly_ focusing on their speedometers and not on the road would lead to a rather obvious disaster.

This is assserted time and time again, but there's really no need to 'constantly focus on one's speedometer' in order to regulate speed to either an imposed speed limit or some judgement about what is safe. Checking instruments every few seconds is all that's required and it needn't act as a distraction from attention to the road and the environment. I would not be surprised to find that the safest and smoothest riders (you know, the ones on the white Pan Europeans) check their speeedos quite frequently.

As for this old revenue vs safety nonsense, anyone who thinks that raising revenue through speed cameras is the whole dastardly plan needs to do some more critical thinking. If the aim was to raise revenue from transport there are much simpler methods. Increased VAT on tyres for example.

Finally re speed killing or not, try this simple experiment. Find a nice strong wall with a good run up. Walk briskly up to the wall until you bump into it (no wimpy cheating by putting hands out to stop). Now do the same at a brisk jog. After first aid has been administered, try sprinting. After consciousness returns get on a push bike and repeat at say 30mph. Of course going faster doesn't CAUSE accidents all by itself but it does make the consequences more serious.

And no, I'm not 'against' speed I'm just against sloppy thinking and weak attempts to justify practices (such as riding my bike at high speed) that really have no justification in a logical sense.

[Vtwinlover]

Still better not to bump into things in the first place!!!! :roll:

[Biker Biggles]

I think we should revert to the man with a red flag walking in front of every vehicle.That way every time you hit that wall it would'nt matter.
On a more serious note I went to Mallory Park a couple of weeks ago and had to go through the road works at Leicester where the "specs" cameras are enforcing the 40 limit.It was clear that some drivers were concentrating rather too much on something other than the road ahead and the direction of their vehicle.I assume they were looking at their speedos.
There is a kind of paranoia that is instilled by this kind of surveillance,and I found myself looking at speed more than I should too,because the risk of getting done for slipping up is so high.

[northwind]

It's bad enough today with people being distracted momentarily by speed cameras - but to have everybody _constantly_ focusing on their speedometers and not on the road would lead to a rather obvious disaster.


What's wrong with all these drivers that they can't keep a steady speed without staring at their speedos? The only time this becomes a problem is when people treet the speed limit as a target, not a limit, and stay at it all the time- and that's purely a driver attitude problem.

[Biker Biggles]

Northwind,you miss the point.It's not that (most) drivers can't keep a constant speed roughly at the correct level,it's the paranoia brought about by constant surveillance.This causes people to become obsessed by the speedo and thus fail to observe the road ahead as they should.

[northwind]

Still an attitude problem... And IMO still caused by limit targeting. It's a pretty sorry indictment of the state of driving today that people have so much to be paranoid about on the speed front.

[Biker Biggles]

You might have the makings of a good argument if you could convince me that our speed limits were all justified and set at the correct level.In real life they command little respect from most road users because they are usually inappropriate for the time,place and conditions.(Often set too high in bad conditions!)

[northwind]

Very true, that's the other side of the coin. I usually end up saying that in these threads at some point, ignoring the 85th percentile rule undermines any attempt to enforce limits as people won't accept them as being safety limits.

[embee]

:rant:

stop it with this self righteous stuff and join us in the real world.

The reason people concentrate on their speedo and not on the road is because speed (oops, sorry, safety) cameras take no prisoners, they just dole out a £60 fine and 3 points, and most road users simply don't want that, so they're going to concentrate on their speedo. End of story.

We are constantly being preached at that "speed kills", what with the adverts on TV showing kids being run over at 40mph etc, and that drink-driving kills, we are NOT preached at that bad driving kills, that lack of attention kills, that aggressive driving kills, that poor driving skills kills, that driving too fast and too close in bad weather kills. Just look at how many people still use mobile phones and don't wear seat belts.

I've nothing against most current speed limits, nor against cameras in appropriate places, but don't be surprised that most people concentrate more on their speedo than on the road ahead where there are speed monitoring systems in use.

I do, I'm sure most drivers do. Add to that this "zero tolerance" stuff from various Chief Constables and what do you expect?

I've managed to keep a clean licence for 30+ years, and I'm not going to let a momentary lapse of attention to my speedo spoil it, just so long as the kids who run out in front of me realise that too. Hey, after all if I'm not exceeding 30mph it must be safe, yes???

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Still an attitude problem... And IMO still caused by limit targeting. It's a pretty sorry indictment of the state of driving today that people have so much to be paranoid about on the speed front.

I'd say that's more a sorry inditement of the state, not the state of peoples driving. Noone was paranoid before the introduction of cameras; they adjusted their speed to the conditions and the surrounding hazards, just as they should.

[northwind]

So before cameras everyone drove perfectly safely and at an appropriate speed, but since cameras the roads are more dangerous? Really?

Embee, it's not self righteous- I make no bones about the fact that I speed quite a lot, pretty much constantly in fact. It's just this suggestion that it takes some huge effort to stay within speed limits that bugs me. It's obvious rubbish to me, it's such a basic skill. Human beings are very good at judging speeds, it's a useful side effect of being a carnivorous predator- As long as you're not trying to stay at 30 or 40 all the time, staying within the limit is absolute childs play.

If it's zero tolerance that causes the problem, what's a reasonable margin? 10%? Fine then, drive 10% below and you're perfectly safe.

Again, I've no time for the zero tolerance, cameras as a cure for all ills case either but the truth usually lies somewhere between the 2 extremes.

[embee]

OK, I'm calm. :wink:

What I was really getting at was that anyone expressed any degree of surprise that people concentrate on their speedo when there's a very real threat of fines and points for doing a few mph over the limit. I know of people who have been done for 34 in a 30, they're perfectly safe and responsible drivers and don't deserve 3 points.

I agree with most of what's been said about other aspects of driving standards, but don't be surprised when that's what people do. I do it.

If there is a copper who will stop someone driving inappropriately and tell them the error of their ways and by the way watch your speed, no problems. Cameras don't use common sense though.

We all know of sections of road where the limits are not really appropriate. I know of numerous examples where what have been 40 limits for the last 20yrs suddenly become 30, or where the 30 limit has just been extended out into the countryside by another 500m, or a semi-rural dual carriageway has a 40 limit on it. These situations have "unnatural" limits applied (referring to the post citing the 85th percentile stuff) so you DO need to concentrate on the speedo to avoid exceeding the limit. These are where the mobile speed camera vans (let's cut the politically correct "safety partnership" stuff) usualy site themselves, as often as not round a bend at the bottom of a hill where people will probably be a few mph over (I know at least 2 spots on the old Banbury road from Warwick where the vans do exactly this).

Certainly driving/riding in 30 limits I spend far too much time looking at my speedo. Call me paranoid but I just feel that they really are out to get me and any slight transgression will get me 3 points. If a kid runs out in front of me while I'm looking at the speedo, well tough. Sorry but that's the kind of attitude the authorities' "speed obsession" has engendered in me. I wish it hadn't, but there you go. Maybe I have an attitude problem? I just resent the "control and punish" approach that is applied by the authorities to every aspect of modern life. :roll:

[hall13uk]

just seen this post & if anyone tries to fit one of those boxes to my bike or car they be told where to go, if i have to i will give up my private transport i brought my bike for the freedom it gives not so i have to stuck to a certian limit. :evil: sorry rant over :roll:

[Flamin_Squirrel]

So before cameras everyone drove perfectly safely and at an appropriate speed, but since cameras the roads are more dangerous? Really?

No of course not. As you say later on, the truth lies somewhere in between

It's just this suggestion that it takes some huge effort to stay within speed limits that bugs me. It's obvious rubbish to me, it's such a basic skill.

I agree people are good at judging speed (actualy I think people are better at judging what speed is safe... anyway) - you could probably remove everyones speedo with no ill effects. The problem comes if you threaten people with a £60 fine and a potential loss of licence if they creep slightly over the speed limit. They will become speedo fixated regardless of their ability to judge speed.

If it's zero tolerance that causes the problem, what's a reasonable margin? 10%? Fine then, drive 10% below and you're perfectly safe.

But if speed isn't a major factor in RTA's, what would be the point?

[afterburner]

The Gulf state is grappling with a soaring accident rate: 21.6 people per 100,000 population are dying in traffic accidents, nearly four times the toll in Britain.

Is it speed or antics like this... :shock:

http://tadas.dtiltas.lt/arab.htm

Click on a number to see a vid..

[Ken McCulloch]

Hey, after all if I'm not exceeding 30mph it must be safe, yes???

Well safer than doing 70 in the same place which is the point surely? The idea of things being safe or unsafe is a bit inadequate, there are degrees of safe/unsafeness to be considered I think. The faster you travel the less safe you and those around you are because of the consequences of things going wrong. Having a hole in the wing of an aircraft that flies at 200mph might not be a huge problem but havin a hole in the wing of a sapce shuttle is because of the speed related effect. A child being hit by a motorcycle at walking pace will suffer less injury than at 40 mph.

[Anonymous]

Hey, after all if I'm not exceeding 30mph it must be safe, yes???

Well safer than doing 70 in the same place which is the point surely? The idea of things being safe or unsafe is a bit inadequate, there are degrees of safe/unsafeness to be considered I think. The faster you travel the less safe you and those around you are because of the consequences of things going wrong. Having a hole in the wing of an aircraft that flies at 200mph might not be a huge problem but havin a hole in the wing of a sapce shuttle is because of the speed related effect. A child being hit by a motorcycle at walking pace will suffer less injury than at 40 mph.

Absolute rubbish. I'll slow a Boeing 747 down from 400 knots to 90 knots over central London (with no flaps) - lets see how 'safe' it becomes then. Before all the obsession with speed we just as capable of judging what was and what wasn't a safe speed to drive at - I would say the vast majority of fines by scameras are due to people not deviating from this driving policy (which earned us the safest roads in the world I will add) and being punished on a technicality.

Numerical values have absolutely no relevance to safety. Consider the recent example near me of a truck hitting a kid at what was estimated to be 17mph - the kid was killed, and the truck was doing nearly half the speed limit. How is a "safety" camera going to stop this sort of incident? If you look at research by SafeSpeed, it is shown that the vast majority of fatal accidents occur at speeds well under the speed limit!

[snoopy]

Still an attitude problem... And IMO still caused by limit targeting. It's a pretty sorry indictment of the state of driving today that people have so much to be paranoid about on the speed front.

I'd say that's more a sorry inditement of the state, not the state of peoples driving. Noone was paranoid before the introduction of cameras; they adjusted their speed to the conditions and the surrounding hazards, just as they should.

=D> but not for the minority who are unable to do this.

[creamerybutter]

What I see as a major flaw in the current monitoring of speed is that it is all electronic and therefore isn't able to make judgement calls, it sees you as either guilty or not guilty and it isn't always black and white like that.

The roads haven't got any safer despite the number of cameras rocketing up and the amount of penalties going out mainly in my opinion due the massive reduction in traffic police. Cameras only catch speed and that isn't the only cause of accidents (so say it doesn't cause any is wrong in my opinion), police catch (or can do) drunk drivers, people on mobile phones, tail gaters and just bad driving in general. I was on the motorway and an obviously ****ed bloke was in front, he was speeding he was just swerving across all three lane which is surely much more dangerous! A camera wouldn't have seen a problem a copper would. My worry is with these GPS unit thing is that the police force will loose even more traffic cops.

Another worry for me is that kids aren't taught the dangers of the road like they used to be. Its all well and good saying hitting a kit at 30 is better than at 40 but surely it would be better to not hit the kid at all and when some kids just run into the road without looking it's getting harder.

I accept that limits are there for a reason but I feel the way they are being enforced is all wrong. What with cameras hidden behind trees clearly designed to catch people after the event rather than slow them down in the first place, even cameras placed after the school rather than before to catch people who have already sped past the school rather than have them go past the school at a slower speed.

Just my 2p's worth.

[northwind]

What I see as a major flaw in the current monitoring of speed is that it is all electronic and therefore isn't able to make judgement calls, it sees you as either guilty or not guilty and it isn't always black and white like that.

Definately. The judgement should come into it when setting limits but that's just not happening now... Judgement can also be applied by the sentencing judge after a court case.

Thing is though, I don't think there was a golden age when coppers made the right decisions, dangerous speeders got punished and safe speeders drove off into the sunset. IMO when you're dealing with an officer it's as much about the sort of day they're having, whether they like your looks, whether they like or dislike bikes (or modded Clios or whatever), whether they're self-important power freaks, occasionally the colour of your skin or your accent, your age, how large your breasts are, whether or not the got a shag last night, etc etc. I know I've got off with offences that another copper would have done me for several times, and I've been done when another copper would have let me off. That's no fairer or more reasonable than being flashed for doing 45 on a deserted 40mph urban dual at midnight.

[embee]

Hey, after all if I'm not exceeding 30mph it must be safe, yes???

.......Well safer than doing 70 in the same place which is the point surely? .........

(I was being sarcastic, referring to the "safety" epithet being appied to what we all know are "speed" cameras. Just because you're under 30mph doesn't mean you're safe).

My point being that doing 29mph staring at the speedo is NOT safer than doing 31mph but being alert and watching what's going on around you.

Hey Ken, I know you study this subject, on a serious point, what percentage of KSI car occupants are NOT wearing seat belts? I've been looking for some stats on this but it seems conspicuous by its absence in all the reports I've seen. :?