UK speed camera tolerances revealed (Somewhat).

[Avocet]

If it was up to me I would have the speed limit enforced to its posted figure, non of this grace of an extra few mph. It would be down to the driver to ensure his speedometer was accurate, and if you are unsure your speedometer was inaccurate then just drive a little slower. Remember the speed limit is a LIMIT, not a target. And I would have non of this idiocy of these highly visible come bleeding obvious speed cameras. I would have 50x more of them and hide the buggers.

As for the fines - £200 for every mph over the multiplied by the weight of your vehicle in tons
33mph in a half ton car = £300
33mph in a 3 ton range rover = £1,800
33mph in a 44ton truck = £26,400


And then for environmental and safety reason I would reduce speed limits to 20 in built up areas and 40 on all other roads - cars are a catastrophe and we need to start waking up to the utter mess they are making.

Let me guess.... you're not a doctor living in a rural area then?

This often happens when you lose the last of a generation who can remember what it was like before something. Sure, the car has brought problems, but we have become blind to its benefits and now want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's a bit like the NHS. Now that the last few people who can remember what it was like, not being able to afford to pay the doctor are dying off, all we're left with is a population that constantly moans about the downsides of the NHS, whilst taking the benefits for granted.

 

[Munroast]

Presumably, such speed limits would not apply to bicycles.

Why ever not ? Don't see why they should be exempt - I know push bikes don't have speedometers as standard, but if the cyclist felt they may go anywhere near the speed limit then its up to them to get a speedometer and make sure its accurate. (I'm almost certain that those who are likely to go near speed limits already have that tech on board.

Of course, in my system of fines that express danger (by factoring in weight) the cyclists fines would be lower than cars and trucks

23mph in a 20 zone with bike and rider weighing in at 16 stone
3 x 200 x 0.1 = £60

 

[Munroast]

Let me guess.... you're not a doctor living in a rural area then?

This often happens when you lose the last of a generation who can remember what it was like before something. Sure, the car has brought problems, but we have become blind to its benefits and now want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's a bit like the NHS. Now that the last few people who can remember what it was like, not being able to afford to pay the doctor are dying off, all we're left with is a population that constantly moans about the downsides of the NHS, whilst taking the benefits for granted.

Puzzled by your 'doctor in rural area' angle ? we have ambulances that are legally allowed to speed in emergency situations, not sure if doctors need to speed on route to golf course, come to tink of it the few doctors I do know are all into cycling and would probably welcome lower traffic speeds. I would almost be certain that most doctors would want people to go cycling and what better way to encourage cycling than to make the roads safer by reducing traffic speeds and volumes.

I'm not trying to get rid of motorised transport, of course it is useful and necessary. But surely you recognise the problems they are causing, there are more now than ever before, in fact everywhere is getting clogged up with the dam things, they are getting bigger and bigger, faster and faster, society is building itself around the car - they really are an utter catastrophe

 

[Avocet]

Puzzled by your 'doctor in rural area' angle ? we have ambulances that are legally allowed to speed in emergency situations, not sure if doctors need to speed on route to golf course, come to tink of it the few doctors I do know are all into cycling and would probably welcome lower traffic speeds. I would almost be certain that most doctors would want people to go cycling and what better way to encourage cycling than to make the roads safer by reducing traffic speeds and volumes.

I'm not trying to get rid of motorised transport, of course it is useful and necessary. But surely you recognise the problems they are causing, there are more now than ever before, in fact everywhere is getting clogged up with the dam things, they are getting bigger and bigger, faster and faster, society is building itself around the car - they really are an utter catastrophe

Doctors in rural areas (like Mrs Avocet) need to get to hospitals as quickly as possible when they're on-call (for fairly obvious reasons). You're calling for a 40 limit on roads that might have 60 or 70 limits now. That's not going to help her get in to work any quicker in an emergency, is it? You're calling for 20 MPH limits in built-up areas - which will be a real own-goal when it comes to emissions and air quality. As it happens, she is a keen cyclist, but she recognises that when she needs to get to the hospital quickly in the middle of the night, it's actually a pretty rubbish choice of transport. As for the draconian enforcement you're calling for, the closest you're likely to get is North Wales under Brunstrom (dubbed the "Mad Mullah of the Traffic Taliban" by the press at the time). He was famous for his "zero tolerance" of speeding. Did it make North Wales any safer than other areas of the country with similar traffic density and terrain? Not really - but it did make him a fair bit of money in fines!

Sure, the car has created problems, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater won't fix them. What you'll see is our current population trying to squeeze into the cities because they can't easily get to their jobs or services.

 

[Avocet]

Why ever not ? Don't see why they should be exempt - I know push bikes don't have speedometers as standard, but if the cyclist felt they may go anywhere near the speed limit then its up to them to get a speedometer and make sure its accurate. (I'm almost certain that those who are likely to go near speed limits already have that tech on board.

Of course, in my system of fines that express danger (by factoring in weight) the cyclists fines would be lower than cars and trucks

23mph in a 20 zone with bike and rider weighing in at 16 stone
3 x 200 x 0.1 = £60

Speed limits only apply to power-driven vehicles. That's just a historic throwback from the days when cyclists couldn't really exceed speed limits. Obviously they and their machines have evolved to the point where they can (and often do!) now, so maybe it's time to revisit that, but to what end? As we've already seen in a few well-publicised cases, cyclists (like car drivers) don't have to be exceeding a speed limit to kill.

 

[Munroast]

Doctors in rural areas (like Mrs Avocet) need to get to hospitals as quickly as possible when they're on-call (for fairly obvious reasons). You're calling for a 40 limit on roads that might have 60 or 70 limits now. That's not going to help her get in to work any quicker in an emergency, is it? You're calling for 20 MPH limits in built-up areas - which will be a real own-goal when it comes to emissions and air quality. As it happens, she is a keen cyclist, but she recognises that when she needs to get to the hospital quickly in the middle of the night, it's actually a pretty rubbish choice of transport. As for the draconian enforcement you're calling for, the closest you're likely to get is North Wales under Brunstrom (dubbed the "Mad Mullah of the Traffic Taliban" by the press at the time). He was famous for his "zero tolerance" of speeding. Did it make North Wales any safer than other areas of the country with similar traffic density and terrain? Not really - but it did make him a fair bit of money in fines!

Sure, the car has created problems, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater won't fix them. What you'll see is our current population trying to squeeze into the cities because they can't easily get to their jobs or services.

May be dr avocet could get special training in high speed driving and have a blue flashing light ? it all sounds like a bit of an excuse for the 'I just want to drive fast' club.

20mph speed limit in built up areas would probably make no difference to air quality, but it would make the roads far safer to cycle on and that in turn would reduce traffic numbers and dramatically improve the overall health of overweight unfit unhealthy Britain - I'm sure dr avocet would give the thumbs up for that - and may be her emergency middle of the night high speed journeys to the hospital will be less for her, is your A&E dept not staffed 24/7?

What better way to raise taxes than by taxing those who don't respect the law - I like taxes that are optional so as I don't have to pay them.

 

[Avocet]

May be dr avocet could get special training in high speed driving and have a blue flashing light ? it all sounds like a bit of an excuse for the 'I just want to drive fast' club.

LOL! You haven't met her! She's a pretty staid driver (and it's green lights for doctors anyway, although they don't make it legal to exceed the speed limit, they're likely to at least encourage considerate drivers to make way for you, but are pretty pointless in a rural area with little traffic, so she doesn't have one). No, it's just O-level physics. Time is distance / speed. Make the speed bigger and you'll make the time smaller. Your 40 limit would require more time to cover the same distance than the current 60 limit. She's no more a member of the "I want to drive fast club" than you are of the "Red flag club" (Although I don't know? Maybe you are...)?

20mph speed limit in built up areas would probably make no difference to air quality, but it would make the roads far safer to cycle on and that in turn would reduce traffic numbers and dramatically improve the overall health of overweight unfit unhealthy Britain - I'm sure dr avocet would give the thumbs up for that - and may be her emergency middle of the night high speed journeys to the hospital will be less for her, is your A&E dept not staffed 24/7?

We already have plenty of 20 MPH limits in various cities. Doubtless you'll be able to post a link to some research showing the corresponding reduction in obesity in those cities? And yes, her hospital is staffed 24/7, but not all the staff are there 24 hours a day and (this may surprise you) today's NHS doesn't maintain a full range of staff overnight and as it increasingly runs services at her hospital down, more and more people are having to be transferred by ambulance to the larger one 40 miles away. Naturally, if it was you in the back of the ambulance, I trust you'd be exhorting them to do the journey at 40 rather than 60?

What better way to raise taxes than by taxing those who don't respect the law - I like taxes that are optional so as I don't have to pay them.

Yes, a "smugness tax" would seem like a good idea....[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[JBR]

Why ever not ? Don't see why they should be exempt - I know push bikes don't have speedometers as standard, but if the cyclist felt they may go anywhere near the speed limit then its up to them to get a speedometer and make sure its accurate. (I'm almost certain that those who are likely to go near speed limits already have that tech on board.

Of course, in my system of fines that express danger (by factoring in weight) the cyclists fines would be lower than cars and trucks

23mph in a 20 zone with bike and rider weighing in at 16 stone
3 x 200 x 0.1 = £60

I'm sure they must be exempt.

After all, they are allowed to ride through red traffic lights, ride on pavements, ride at night without lights and, of course, are exempt from having any insurance and identification plates.

I'd buy a bike and save a lot of money if it were not for the increased chance of my being killed, even though they wear trendy lycra and have a camera on top of their head!

 

[JBR]

20mph speed limit in built up areas would probably make no difference to air quality, but it would make the roads far safer to cycle on.

What better way to raise taxes than by taxing those who don't respect the law - I like taxes that are optional so as I don't have to pay them.

I agree. Like those who cycle on pavements and go through red traffic lights!

 

[motorbiking]

In all the years I was running advanced motorcycle courses, I can’t ever remember needing to look at my speedo or advise others to do so, in order to determine a safe speed.

That is not to say we did not comply with limits but that it was not done for the benefit of safety alone.

In the uk speed limits have reduced by 50%+ on most non-m roads in the last 10-15 years but casualties have stayed the same. That is against a backdrop of more vehicles but also massive improvements to primary and secondary vehicle safety.

Speed limit enforcement just doesn’t impact road safety the way the authorities would like.

 

[Brigadier]

When I drove to southern France last year, I did wonder why my 130kph (80mph) was a hell of a lot slower than a lot of the others (they must have been doing the 90mph version)!

As I've long held, speed and danger are not directly correlated; certainly not when an arbitrary speed limit is in force.

Going back to my experiences last year, I can well see why french rural A-type roads are dangerous, and it has little to do with speeding. To me, it seemed that the average french driver was so desperate to overtake, they'd sit under your rear bumper, have a number of kamikaze and abortive attempts to pass you, before finally making it.........and then sit at the speed limit anyway. Seemed a lot of jeopardy for no gain. At least in the UK, the overtaker would be consistent enough to blast off into the distance, after they'd passed you........

 

[motorbiking]

Used to get that a lot when I had a motorhome. they’d overtake you and then slow down - seemed pointless.

 

[Munroast]

LOL! You haven't met her! She's a pretty staid driver (and it's green lights for doctors anyway, although they don't make it legal to exceed the speed limit, they're likely to at least encourage considerate drivers to make way for you, but are pretty pointless in a rural area with little traffic, so she doesn't have one). No, it's just O-level physics. Time is distance / speed. Make the speed bigger and you'll make the time smaller. Your 40 limit would require more time to cover the same distance than the current 60 limit. She's no more a member of the "I want to drive fast club" than you are of the "Red flag club" (Although I don't know? Maybe you are...)?



We already have plenty of 20 MPH limits in various cities. Doubtless you'll be able to post a link to some research showing the corresponding reduction in obesity in those cities? And yes, her hospital is staffed 24/7, but not all the staff are there 24 hours a day and (this may surprise you) today's NHS doesn't maintain a full range of staff overnight and as it increasingly runs services at her hospital down, more and more people are having to be transferred by ambulance to the larger one 40 miles away. Naturally, if it was you in the back of the ambulance, I trust you'd be exhorting them to do the journey at 40 rather than 60?



Yes, a "smugness tax" would seem like a good idea....

If your rural area is anything like mine then I doubt you could average anything like 60mph, I doubt I could average 45 in between my home and my local hospital 28 mile away and that would be giving it a fair bit of wellie. Having a max of 40 on country roads would make very little difference to relatively short journeys, and a few minutes of extra time would bring many benefits to the environment and society in general.

But as I said earlier doctors and ambulances could be given rights under any new reduced speed limits to drive a bit faster - so all of your worries can easily be addressed.

I agree. Like those who cycle on pavements and go through red traffic lights!

In some EU countries (Germany?) Road laws come under the broad heading of 'Traffic' rather then 'Motorised Transport' as it does in the UK. This means that jump a red light on a bike can see 3 penalty points on your driving licience. I know not every cyclist will be a driver, but for the vast amount who are it would certainly focus their minds. As I mentioned before I'm all for cyclists having to keep to the rules, too many idiots amongst them.

In all the years I was running advanced motorcycle courses, I can’t ever remember needing to look at my speedo or advise others to do so, in order to determine a safe speed.

That is not to say we did not comply with limits but that it was not done for the benefit of safety alone.

In the uk speed limits have reduced by 50%+ on most non-m roads in the last 10-15 years but casualties have stayed the same. That is against a backdrop of more vehicles but also massive improvements to primary and secondary vehicle safety.

Speed limit enforcement just doesn’t impact road safety the way the authorities would like.

that is utter nonsense - I can't think of any near me (apart from the 30 being extended a little out of town) but most roads ???? some have went from 60 to 50 and some residential from 30 to 20 - 50+% reduction?

Lowering speed limits has far more benefits than the direct safety of those driving them. And considering the vast numbers of people killed and seriously injured on the roads any reduction will be welcome, and any reduction in speed at the point of collision will help, the lower the speed you crash at the more chance of avoiding or reducing injury. The numbers killed or seriously injured on the roads is just enormous, compare it to other tragedies, and yet we sweep the carnage on the roads under the carpet and think of it as some sort of act of god, or one of those things

Other benefits from reduced speeds is the massive impact on fuel consumption / pollution.
It would vastly decrease the amount of wildlife killed, at 60mph bird strikes are common, at 40 it rarely happens.
Huge reduction in road noise from tyres which would make being outdoors about anywhere much more pleasant
Roads become more pleasant places to cycle, more people cycling would give a healthier population with less strain on our over stressed NHS

I really can't see any benefits in persisting in our very high speed limits, and even more shameful that many people just ignore them and drive as fast as they think they can get away with.

 

[JP_]

I live on a 30mph limit road, but it's between the A12 and main road to Chelmsford, so people often go by at 50mph especially at night when the roads are quiet.
There are plans to put more housing in too, on the other side of the road (none at present).
This is a typical road that needs a more sensible speed limit. 30 is OK, but it is not policed in any way, and it won't be until there's an accident.
Well, a fatal one - there have been non-fatal collisions. Too dangerous to let kids of any age try crossing though.

 

[JP_]

and, another though. I take the same route to and from work everyday, has some nice country roads with national speed limits, then 40s and 30s, and if you go at the max speed all the way there is often something unexpected, like a parked car around a corner that isn't usually there, or some mad driver coming the other way in the middle of the road, and you have to wonder if 60mph is really sensible on a country lane where you can't see more than 50m ahead in some places, considering stopping distance is less than that, and half of that for 2 cars head on.