Sorry - are you arguing for less enforcement of speed limits or more enforcement of other laws ?
If it is about less enforcement of speed limits then your comment "It is not about speed limits" is a little bit silly.
It it is about more enforcement of other laws, then driving slowly on the M4 seems a daft way of going about it.
|
I have come late to this debate but I have to disagree with Mark that driving slowly around the M4 is daft.
It is not daft it is desperate and we are forced to it by London based members of the Scottish Raj who swan around England in chaffeur driven cars with police escorts who force their way through traffic jams in the name of 'security' and who'se drivers get let off when caught speeding because they were doing it in response to an undisclosed 'security' threat. Allied to them are London based anti-capitalist groups who see the car as an abomination. I am reminded of the Duke of Wellington who was against the railways as it would encourage the peasants to move about.
I unfortunately can not be there but I wish them well, they will probably achieve nothing but at least they are making a gesture.
|
Anyone else getting fed up with the way some contributers dominate discussion threads? Contributing the same views for the umpteenth time is not exactly interesting reading and doesn't exactly encourage other contributers.
|
No more or less valid an approach than a dozen contributors all spouting the same view.
::shrugs::
Thats discussion for you.
No Do$h - Alfa-driving Backroom Moderator
mailto:moderators@honestjohn.co.uk
|
My suggestion that the M4 speed traps constituted a "zero tolerance" enforcement of the 70mph limit was earlier brushed aside (with much scorn) in this thread.
Perhaps those who plan to drive between J14-18 at precisely 77mph, secure in the knowledge that their GPS systems and never under-reading speedos are keeping them ssafe, might like to bear in mind this direct quote from Saira Khan of the "Wiltshire and Swindon Safety Camera Partnership" -:
"I cannot say what the trigger speed is going to be"
Unless someone has confirmation from the same source that the margin of "tolerance" is in fact8mph, I'd be observing the limit fairly exactly if I was in the area.
|
>>Perhaps those who plan to drive between J14-18 at precisely 77mph,
[sigh]
If I drive at an indicated 70mph my speed is somewhere between 63mph and 70mph. For my actual speed to break the speed limit my speedo would have to show at least 77mph and potentially upto 84mph.
If I drive at an indicated 70mph my margin of safety is somewhere between 7mph and 14mph - that is a lot. (upto 20%)
|
I was not making a point about the margin of safety enabled by under-reading speedometers.
I was making a point about the margin of (in)tolerance applied by the authorities to your *actual* speed.
Which may or may not be zero.
For those, like you, who derive a comprehensive understanding of their own range of possible velocities from a single speedometer reading, the fact that the trigger speed of these traps may be set at 71mph rather than the popularly supposed 78mph reduces the maximum "safe" speedometer reading at which you can travel.
Simple enough for you to understand?
|
|
|
|
|
oo oo oo - Name names my little yellow telecom bird friend. I love scandal.
|
Well it must be you RF you keep reapeating yourself.
Well it must be you RF you keep reapeating yourself.
Well it must be you RF you keep Well it must be you RF you keep reapeating yourself.reapeating yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Thommo,
Its a question of presentation (or even "spin" if you prefer.
The electorate as a whole isn't all that bright. However bright individual members of it might be, the mass is a little simplistic.
There is little point in trying to convince them of complex points or trying to argue against their "principles".
It is a battle of perception and marketing.
The "Speed is bad" crowd have a couple of things going for them;
1) Drivers can't be trusted and there are a portion of nutters in there showing that speed limits are required.
2) The laws of physics says that you must do more damage to me if you hit me at 70mph than if you hit me at 10mph.
3) Law enforcement is generally perceived to be a good thing.
4) Whatever the reality it seems logical that there must be less accidents at 30mph than at 70mph
5) People are killed. 1 or 1 million, people are killed.
1) What can you say. There must be enforcement against the nutters and the fools.
2) Arguing this is pointless. Its true.
3) Arguing against enforcement is not going to work. Mr and Mrs averag, along with a bunch of officialdom, are never going to admit that enforcement shouldn't be carried out. You'll never get past the "don't speed then cameras are no issue" argument. Emotionally there is just no where to go with this.
4) This isn't true. There can be less speed at a higher speed if it is the appropriate speed for a road.
5) People are always killed, you just can't argue against it.
Given all of that I don't see that there is any argument to be had other than 4). Or at least no argument that will will over a bunch of people taking an emotive and simplistic view of the situation.
So lets hammer that one. Surely the argument "speed limits must be appropriate and then totally enforced" would be an statement which would be very difficult to argue against - by anyone, including the "Speed is bad" people.
Lets focus on how those limits get set, and make sure that they are set reasonably - including variable limits and the like.
Most of the other arguments are spurious and harmful.
Who do you think is ever going to hear "I can't look at my speedo and still drive safely" and decide to remove cameras ?
Who do you think is ever going to hear "there's too many burglaries" and decide to remove cameras ?
Who do you think will ever hear any argument against enforcement and decide to remove cameras.
Because your problem is that the masses believe individual speed limits and speed limits as a whole to be reasonable.
And there lies the problem - because frequenty they are not.
If the limit on a motorway was 1,000 mph would you care about the cameras ? Of course not. If the limit was 10% fdaster than anybody could conceivably consider safe would you care about the cameras ? Of course not.
The problem is *NOT* the cameras. The problem *IS* the limit. One speed limit will never fit all approaches, all conditions or all roads - but one approach to speed limit setting might do so. Which is handy, because you'll never win the arguments about cameras, but you could win the one about speed limits.
And driving slowly around the M4 might make a difference and be an effective process *IF* you were protesting about something reasonable.
1) Against speed cameras - losers.
2) Against the enforcement of laws other than speed limits - losers
3)Against the methods used for setting speed limits - well as part of a campaign that might work. And its the only hope you've got.
And that is quite enough from me.
|
Thommo, Its a question of presentation (or even "spin" if you prefer. The electorate as a whole isn't all that bright. However bright individual members of it might be, the mass is a little simplistic. [snip]
Mark: It's a question of balance. The current policy is going to extremes and is unbalanced. Next we'll have a man with a red flag walking in front of each and every car. I see lots of speed cameras, and the ones on the M4 worry me. Although I observe limits, apart from those on motorways, were my speedo to be off by 5mph, then I might lose my licence which is hardly fair. So what am I to do? Have my speedo checked every week? Install an accurate and expensive GPS system that uses satellites to check my speed? Where I live cyclists are lunatics (no lights at night, wrong side of the road) and I might be wrong but I see no police presence to clean up their act. I also get tailgated such as this morning, which is dangerous driving, and I see no police trying to stop tailgating or other examples of dangerous driving.
Leif
|
|
|
|
|
|
When was the last time you saw a camera just before a blind bend or dangerous curve?.
Pay a visit to my chunk of West Yorkshire, and you'll see that plenty of the cameras near me are on dangerous bends.
Interestingly, though, the area where there had been the highest number of fatal accidents was on a wide and straight bit of road. No fatal accidents there since cameras installed a few yaears ago.
|
Pay a visit to my chunk of West Yorkshire, and you'll see that plenty of the cameras near me are on dangerous bends.
Same here, NW. It's just that by "on" a bend, they mean "just after". Not "just before".
|
Same here, NW. It's just that by "on" a bend, they mean "just after". Not "just before".
And in Northants where we have a bi directional Truevelo protecting staggered junction with a history of accidents to right turners. Situated between side and perhaps 100 metres from either.
But you cannot win with the antis. These are said to be badly situated as folks pass the camera on the limit then accelerate into the hazard.
|
|
|
|
Taking a different approach, I would favour abolishing speed limits on most roads. (Fits in with my views on getting rid of street furniture, signs, paint and other distractions:-))
The rule should simply be that one should always be able to stop in the distance one can see to be safe.
If the motorway is foggy, drivers adjust their speed to the conditions. Why not under *all* conditions?
How would this be enforced? Currently, if the police see you doing something which in their opinion is dangerous, for example doing 70 on the motorway in heavy fog, do they have the power to 'do you'? If so, this principle could simply be extended to all conditions.
IMO, the specification of a fixed speed limit at all is the problem.
number_cruncher
|
|
I presume that they dare not run the protest during the week - Just imagine if traffic flowed better during the protest than it did normally ! ! ! ! !
|
|
|
IMO, the specification of a fixed speed limit at all is the problem.
Together with the assumption that the only way to improve safety is to slow down. Yes, it's one way, but not the only one.
But you cannot win with the antis. These are said to be badly situated
No, that's not my only gripe. But the siting usually provides evidence to support a cynical hypothesis.
as folks pass the camera on the limit then accelerate into the hazard.
Speak for yourself. But how is that worse than not telling people about the hazard until 2 weeks later?
|
Patently;
>> as folks pass the camera on the limit then accelerate into >> the hazard. Speak for yourself. But how is that worse than not telling people about the hazard until 2 weeks later?
I don't speak for myself, rather relay the message from the anti's. The hazard is well signed, the camera dayglo (and forward facing). How much more warning do folks need?
|
We probably have different hazards in mind, so are arguing about different things. There are plenty of camera sites near my home & office that fit my description.
I'm not a pure anti; I do believe that cameras can be used in ways that promote road safety. I could point to examples of these. But they can also be used in ways that have no benefit to road safety but plenty of benefit to the SCP's finances. And, sadly, I can point to examples of these also. The misused cameras undermine the benefit of those that are properly used by taking their credibility away. After all, if you have little brain and can point to plenty of cynically-sited cameras, why not go past at the limit and then accelerate away?
It also upsets me when those in charge of road safety can only suggest reducing speeds. Yes, at a higher speed the same accident is dangerous, and higher speed gives less reaction time. So it is relevant, but it is not the sole cause and speeding is certainly not the same as speed per se. I've had my share of accidents :-( , all (all) of which were below the limit despite the fact that most of my commute is spent above the limit. Yes, if I'd been slower then it might not have happened. But if I'd stayed in bed that day, they wouldn't have happened. Their causes were not speed, but other factors, factors that are being ignored.
So when a road has a poor safety record, there is a speeding enforcement campaign, but nothing is done to make the road safer. It just reminds drivers to take care for those weeks. And when the speeding enforcement campaign leaves the M4, it will still be just as dangerous. People will still get bored witless and fall asleep on it.
Just like those reading this post, in fact, as I seem to have repeated myself sonewhat. But a call for nuanced and intelligent thinking never really comes across well, does it? And, of course, I criticise the safety police, so to some people I will look like a speed-crazed maniac. Ah well.
|
From anti camera campaigner, Idris Francis:
M4 Motorway - advanced warning of congestion - 30th April 2005
News: For immediate release
The amazing public response to the 5-day-old M4 Protest campaign
(www.m4protest.org) suggests that thousands of vehicles will join
the 'slow
drive' protest against M4 speed cameras.
There may be serious congestion on the M4 Motorway between junctions
14 and
18 on Saturday 30th April between 10am and 2pm.
M4 Protest are talking all possible precautions to minimise traffic
disruption, including asking protest traffic to keep out of lane 3,
liaising with Police and running the protest convoy at a target
speed of 56mph.
The public response has been amazing with more than 30,000 web site
page
views in just five days and many hundreds of emails of support. It is
impossible to know what the level of support will turn out to be on
the
day, but we have every reason to believe that it will be considerable.
Protest traffic will assemble at both Leigh Delamere and Membury
Services
from 10am on Saturday 30th April. At 11am protest convoys will leave
both
services travelling west from Membury and east from Leigh Delamere.
We have discussed with Police the risk of service station car park
overflow. If this happens, Police will have to close the slip road
because
traffic backing up onto the Motorway would be dangerous. It follows
that
travellers should ensure that they have plenty of fuel to reach the
next
services.
Travellers may wish to consider alternative routes, alternative travel
times, or may wish to join the M4 Protest.
Details will be published to the M4 Protest web site
( www.m4protest.org ).
Protest organiser, Robin Summerhill said: "If the M4 Protest does
cause
serious congestion then we would see that as a very strong
indication that
the public believes policy is wrong. If people were not upset, they
wouldn't attend and there would be no congestion. In short, we blame
the
government."rancis:
|
>>M4 Protest are talking all possible precautions to minimise traffic disruption
Like not having the protest ?
If people were not upset, they wouldn't attend and there would be no congestion
Oooh. Bit of a high risk statement, that one.
I wonder how many people will show up. Probably less than they hope and more than the government hoped.
|
I wonder how many people will show up.
How many attend the protest is completely irrelevant.
All that matters is what happens to the accident statistics and congestion rates over the forthcoming months. To date, for similar schemes on other roads, they're going the wrong way.
|
I have a question on that;
I have heard repeatedly that accident statistics (dead and/or injured) have remained stable over the last few [6 or so?]years. Is that correct ?
And has the amount of traffic increased/decreased/remained about stable during the same period ?
Genuine questions.
I just wondered because traffic seems much higher to me, although it may not be, and there seems to be less major smashes - although perhaps more accidents.
Just my perception which might be totally wrong, hence the questions.
|
It's a difficult question, Mark, in fact.
I tend not to look at the KSI (killed/seriously injured) figure because the basis for defining someone as seriously injured changed recently, and at about the same time as it dropped. It's difficult to argue whether someone is dead or not so the fatalities figure is at least comparable over the years.
As I understand, that figure was declining steadily and had been for decades despite rising traffic levels, but has risen in recent years.
Paul Smith's site is replete with numbers if you can face navigating around it.
|
>>Paul Smith's site is replete with numbers if you can face navigating around it.
I really can't. I am sure that the true and bald figures are there but the amount of fog makes my head spin.
Although on your other point, they had a big issue with the deadness of someone in Argentina and Brazil. Essentially to qualify as killed in a road accident you had to die at the scene - 30 seconds later in an ambulance on your way to hospital didn't count - certainly in Sao Paulo this used to introduce a fair amount of urgency, and not all that much delicacy, in getting you into an ambulance while still alive.
|
>>To date, for similar schemes on other roads, they're going the wrong way.
p.s. its still the limits which are the problem, not the cameras.
|
I really can't. I am sure that the true and bald figures are there but the amount of fog makes my head spin.
Oh I know. I've found some really interesting, coherent, and informative stuff in there. But can I find it again? Fat chance.
Paul, if you ever read the BR, PLEASE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!!!
|
Paul, if you ever read the BR, PLEASE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!!!
Maybe he is busy worrying about disabled people having life too easy: tinyurl.com/7gkyk
|
From NoWheels link to Transport2000
Even Transport 2000 has been sent a ?I shall take great pleasure in informing my lawyers. I shall leave it to them to decide upon appropriate action? message. My emphasis.
Even Transport 2000? Even?
Well excuse me if I choke on my tongue at the lofty heights to which that bunch of self-appointed crackpot tree-hugging nobody's drag themselves. It's not as if they have any legitimacy in their twisted view of things.
Sheeesh.....
|
Well excuse me if I choke on my tongue at the lofty heights to which that bunch of self-appointed crackpot tree-hugging nobody's drag themselves. It's not as if they have any legitimacy in their twisted view of things.
somehow, I suspect that maybe you don't really like them very much ...
|
Well excuse me if I choke on my tongue at the lofty heights to which that bunch of self-appointed crackpot tree-hugging nobody's drag themselves.
::[broad smile]::
Nicely put, but perhaps a little on the gentle side, ND?
|
Maybe he is busy worrying about disabled people having life too easy: tinyurl.com/7gkyk
Transport 2000 editor diary, no axe to grind then, totally unbiased report of possible comments out of context?
|
Me no lawyer, but I would say that the message on the T2000 board is unfairly derogatory of Smith.
Nor would I regard Smith's comments about disabled parking spaces as particularly unreasonable. No, that is not me expressing the view that they should all be taken away, just that the subject is worth debating*.
[*as opposed to, say, parent & child spaces :-D ]
|
He's redesigned things recently so that all the pages are off menus. If you go to the safespeed forum and ask he usually says 'oh it's this page' and gives you a link. There is now a search facility provided by google so if you can remember a distinctive phrase then you've a good chance of finding it again.
teabelly
|
www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html
The first graph shows deaths per billion vehicle km which allows for rises in traffic and it shows the previous regular 5% pa reduction in fatalities has stopped. Looking at other statistics fatalities as a proportion of all accidents are actually on the increase. The amount of these due to drugged and drunk driving isn't clear. The reduction in KSI figures is partially explained by the redefinition of serious injury which drops some off the KSI figure.
teabelly
|
|
Thanks, HJ, for the update.
For anyone interested, the M4Protest's "about" page no longer says "M4 Protest demands will appear here shortly" -- it sets out the details of the protest. See www.m4protest.org/about.html
Having read what they plan, I am now inclined to think that the protesters are onto a good thing. OK, I disagree with their reasons ... but what they are doing sounds like a step in the right direction.
They have chosen 56mph 'cos it's the same speed as the trucks, and they are avoiding the 3rd lane. So the effect of their "protest" will only be the same as having a lot of trucks on the road.
I think it's a pity that they aren't also going to occupy the 3rd lane: that way they would pretty much eliminate the speed differentials which cause all the lane-changing and other dodgy behaviour on the motorways. But still, having two lanes locked into a steady speed has to be a Good Thing[TM].
So the effect of the "protest" may be to make the traffic flow smoothly, with less bunching, and without the traffic hopping in and out around the 56mph-limited trucks and coaches.
I'd prefer that the traffic moved a bit faster than that, but better that it flows smoothly than going whoosh-stop like the M62 does all day long. So on balance, these folks are planning an improvement.
Does anyone know how we could persuade them to continue this "protest", and to do the same thing on all the other congested parts of the motorway network?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
