UK speed camera tolerances revealed (Somewhat).

[motorbiking]

@Munroist what research have you done to conclude your position? It’s easy to search the TMOs in your area to see how limits have been cut, it’s easy to compare DoT circular guidance on setting limits and see the changes. It’s easy to misunderstand K&SI data and conclude that deaths can be reduced by cutting/enforcing speed limits.

If you search up STATS19 data you will quickly see that speeding is rarely a factor.

 

[Munroast]

@Munroist what research have you done to conclude your position? It’s easy to search the TMOs in your area to see how limits have been cut, it’s easy to compare DoT circular guidance on setting limits and see the changes. It’s easy to misunderstand K&SI data and conclude that deaths can be reduced by cutting/enforcing speed limits.

If you search up STATS19 data you will quickly see that speeding is rarely a factor.

Such stats are notoriously difficult to draw conclusions from and easily interpreted in different ways. Go and have a look at ROSPA's web site if stats are your thing, however I guess you will conclude their data is wrong because it does not fit your own beliefs. As you say such stats are easy to misunderstand.

For me its a no-brainer; the faster you crash at the more damage you will do, and the faster you are travelling the less time you have to identify hazardous situations. Lower speeds will mean less crashes and and fewer injuries deaths when they occur. I'm not sure if anything has ever been more obvious.

But saying all that, human safety is only one of many reasons why I would like to see speed limits enforced and even better greatly reduced. Speeding is antisocial, environmentally damaging, creates unnecessary noise pollution, kills a lot of wildlife, puts people off cycling....

 

[Notch7]

and any reduction in speed at the point of collision will help

Speed isnt a primary factor.

Here are some statistics:
Using the latest statistics from the Department for Transport, RegTransfers has researched the top causes of road accidents – here is a breakdown of the top 10 that occur in a year throughout Britain:

1. Driver failed to look properly – 42,189 accidents reported
2. Driver failed to judge other person’s path or speed – 21,211 accidents reported
3. Driver was careless, reckless or in a hurry – 17,845 accidents reported
4. Driver had poor turn or maneuver – 15,560 accidents reported
5. Loss of control – 12,151 accidents reported
6. Pedestrian failed to look properly – 8,687 accidents reported
7. Slippery road surface – 7,327 accidents reported
8. Driver was travelling too fast for conditions – 6,468 accidents reported
9. Driver was following too close – 6,040 accidents reported
10. Driver was exceeding speed limit – 5,102 accidents reported

Exceeding speed limit is down at number 10.

The UK is also one the safest countries in the world on the road
https://www.beechampeacock.co.uk/news/road-traffic-accidents-uk-versus-world/

The biggest reduction in car deaths is improved car safety.

The next improvement will be driverless cars, which will probably happen as increasing technology that reduces driver error (like active cruise control that reads the car in front).-I expect future generations will look back in confusion at how drivers were free to drive on the road making loads of mistakes!

 

[Burnerman]

.......and young ladies texting- who knows
John

 

[motorbiking]

I have experienced the RoSPA advanced driver program having held a gold level at the time. Their system is similar to the IAM they are all based on the Police system of control.

Accidents are avoided by early hazard awareness, good planning accounting for mistakes and choosing a speed that allows you to stop safely in the distance you can see is clear. Not by blindly driving at 40 rather than 70.

If you reduce a limit to the point where the driver no longer needs to concentrate, they switch off and pay less attention. Ultimately reaction times go up and impact speeds are higher

 

[Avocet]

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.

Yes, but what would the average speed be if it was a 40 limit? (hint - it won't be 40, just like it isn't 60 in a 60 limit)! I think the easiest way of "addressing my worries", is by doing absolutely nothing and not imposing your blatantly anti-car proposals. That's really pretty easy....

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.

As both those countries have speed limits higher than ours on plenty of roads, I wouldn't have thought you'd have been that keen on implementing any of their regulations? Frankly, the idea of basing any kind of regulation on a presumption that a cyclist holds a driving licence strikes me as completely nuts.

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

"vast numbers"? |OK, I did what you suggested and looked at the numbers killed or seriously injured on the roads that you claim is "just enormous", and I compared it to other tragedies:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-to-kill-you-in-one-infographic-a7747386.html

Care to comment?

Other benefits from reduced speeds is the massive impact on fuel consumption / pollution.

a "massive impact", you say? Would you care to put some numbers on that? I'll be perfectly willing to admit that a "modest" improvement could be made, but if you're going to go down that route, you will have to accept higher speed limits for electric vehicles and very light vehicles....

It would vastly decrease the amount of wildlife killed, at 60mph bird strikes are common, at 40 it rarely happens.

Again, big on claims, but short on facts....

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

Speaking as a cyclist on rural roads, I wouldn't like vehicles to get ANY quieter, thank you very much!

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.

You do realise we have some of the LOWEST speed limits in Europe, don't you?

 

[Avocet]

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.

Ah yes. Everyone wants a low speed limit outside *their* house....

I live on a single track rural road. It's about wide enough for a lorry where it passes my house. Two cars would struggle to pass each other, but it's a 60 limit. About 50 yards from my gate, it narrows further and passes between tall banks with hedges on them through a series of tight bends. In the dry, you can just about stop in time not to hit something coming the other way if neither vehicle is doing more than about 20. Two cars definitely wouldn't pass each other on this bit. About 50 yards after that, it straightens out. Probably good for about 40 in the dry. Then there's a slight right hand bend and it goes downhill. You'd be pushing your luck above about 30 round the bend. At the bottom of the hill, there's a hump-backed bridge over the beck. Sight lines are good, and if you don't mind leaving the ground slightly, you can do about 40 again on that bit. Then you go up-hill and the road widens out. There's a long straight with excellent sight lines and no dwellings of field entrances for about half a mile. Frankly, you could safely do more than 60 along that bit in the dry.

So, what do you advocate as the "sensible" speed limit for that road? 20? 40? 60? What if it rains or snows? Should we make it 10 to be "safe"?

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.

You give an excellent example of the fallacy of relying on speed limits to tell you what speed to travel at. Let's be clear about something from the start. The "something unexpected" may or may not be there REGARDLESS of what speed you choose to travel at. Frankly, any driver who can't anticipate the possibility of a parked car round a blind bend probably shouldn't be in possession of a driving licence! The RIGHT thing to do, is to travel at a speed at which you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear at all times. The speed limit is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT in this decision.

 

[EFLImpudence]

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.

Has it ever occurred to you that because there has to be the 10% allowance due to speedometer error and tyres wearing etc. that the speed limits are set to allow for this? That is the 30mph limits are so set to allow for 35mph. Conversely they could be set to 25mph; they are not. Motorways set to 70mph because 80mph is safe.

It would be down to the driver to ensure his speedometer was accurate,

How would you do that?

and if you are unsure your speedometer was inaccurate then just drive a little slower.

How would you know?

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.

They used to be like that. It was thought that that was just a money making exercise as it caught speeders; it was decided to make them highly visible to actually achieve the desired aim of slowing traffic in a certain area - possibly accident black spots, schools etc..

 

[Munroast]

Has it ever occurred to you that because there has to be the 10% allowance due to speedometer error and tyres wearing etc. that the speed limits are set to allow for this? That is the 30mph limits are so set to allow for 35mph. Conversely they could be set to 25mph; they are not. Motorways set to 70mph because 80mph is safe.


How would you do that?


How would you know?


They used to be like that. It was thought that that was just a money making exercise as it caught speeders; it was decided to make them highly visible to actually achieve the desired aim of slowing traffic in a certain area - possibly accident black spots, schools etc..

Calibration could be done when new tyres are fitted, after that, as the tyres wear the error would increasingly show a slightly higher speed than true - so you would always be safe to drive at the limit in the knowledge you were not speeding providing you had your speedometer calibrated with new tyres.

Considering the vast amount of technology built into cars, do you not find it a little odd that they can't tell you what speed you are going with accuracy?
I have never known a car or van that gives accurate speed or distance, they all over estimate by a fair degree. On mileage; My wifes car reads 1.1% over, My Van 2.1% and my other car 4.7% I guess its an easy way to show higher mpg than true. Curiously the inaccuracy of the speedometer does not tally with the inaccuracies of the distance (which is odd) when I have checked I have noted they can easily be showing 5 to 10% too high.

The most accurate speedometers that i noted were on German cars, and I have often wondered if this was part of the reason why it was always the german top marques sitting in the fast lane on motorways passing everything else. Many faster drivers like to sit at about 85 on the motorway, the mercs and the beamers were probably doing 83/84 where many other makes only high 70s. So even though they all thought they were doing 85, it was the merccs and beamers in the outside lane doing the passing.

 

[Avocet]

Calibration could be done when new tyres are fitted, after that, as the tyres wear the error would increasingly show a slightly higher speed than true - so you would always be safe to drive at the limit in the knowledge you were not speeding providing you had your speedometer calibrated with new tyres.

Do let me know how an owner might "calibrate" a speedometer - I'm curious!

Considering the vast amount of technology built into cars, do you not find it a little odd that they can't tell you what speed you are going with accuracy?
I have never known a car or van that gives accurate speed or distance, they all over estimate by a fair degree.

...as they are required to by law. I thought you'd have been right up for it too? After all, that reduces the true speed, and you keep telling us that's a good thing?

On mileage; My wifes car reads 1.1% over, My Van 2.1% and my other car 4.7%

For someone who hates cars as much as you seem to, you certainly have plenty of them! I'm left wondering when you're going to realise that cars are a catastrophe and start waking up to the utter mess they are making?

I guess its an easy way to show higher mpg than true. Curiously the inaccuracy of the speedometer does not tally with the inaccuracies of the distance (which is odd) when I have checked I have noted they can easily be showing 5 to 10% too high.

That's because the speedometer is legally required to over-read and the odometer isn't.

The most accurate speedometers that i noted were on German cars, and I have often wondered if this was part of the reason why it was always the german top marques sitting in the fast lane on motorways passing everything else. Many faster drivers like to sit at about 85 on the motorway, the mercs and the beamers were probably doing 83/84 where many other makes only high 70s. So even though they all thought they were doing 85, it was the merccs and beamers in the outside lane doing the passing.

Yes but the important thing, is that they're all going that bit slower than they think they are, and therefore making the world a better place....[/QUOTE]

 

[Notch7]

Car speedometers have to be accurate within a tolerance, but that is not equal -they are set to over read.

A sat nav will give pretty accurate reading for speed -less so on hills

 

[Munroast]

Yes, but what would the average speed be if it was a 40 limit? (hint - it won't be 40, just like it isn't 60 in a 60 limit)! I think the easiest way of "addressing my worries", is by doing absolutely nothing and not imposing your blatantly anti-car proposals. That's really pretty easy....




As both those countries have speed limits higher than ours on plenty of roads, I wouldn't have thought you'd have been that keen on implementing any of their regulations? Frankly, the idea of basing any kind of regulation on a presumption that a cyclist holds a driving licence strikes me as completely nuts.



"vast numbers"? |OK, I did what you suggested and looked at the numbers killed or seriously injured on the roads that you claim is "just enormous", and I compared it to other tragedies:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-to-kill-you-in-one-infographic-a7747386.html

Care to comment?


a "massive impact", you say? Would you care to put some numbers on that? I'll be perfectly willing to admit that a "modest" improvement could be made, but if you're going to go down that route, you will have to accept higher speed limits for electric vehicles and very light vehicles....


Again, big on claims, but short on facts....

Speaking as a cyclist on rural roads, I wouldn't like vehicles to get ANY quieter, thank you very much!



You do realise we have some of the LOWEST speed limits in Europe, don't you?

Try driving at a lower speed on rural roads and you may be surprised journeys don't take much long, they are far less frustrating, and you save a fortune on fuel

I think it is quite a good idea basing it on transport, the vast vast amount of adult cyclists will also be drivers, there behavior would change and set a good example to younger cyclists. And even if you don't have a licience to get points, you still get the fine.

Can't really see your 'Independent' article (mostly hidden behind a pop up saying I have an ad blocker and need to sign up) but what I can see is mostly health related causes of death (and I guess a good few of the respiratory ones could well be transport related) But I was more aiming at untimely deaths through accidents - Take the boeing max planes, 346 deaths and they have all now been grounded and it has been major world wide news. Compare that to global deaths on the road that run at 4,000 per day, heck we even wipe out that many in the UK alone in not much more than a month. It barely gets a mention unless there misfortune causes delays to others. Strangely we just don't seem to care about people dying on the roads

I improved my mpg from high 40s to mid 60s by keeping it about 45/50 - and my journey times have barely altered.

try driving a bit slower and you will find that bird strikes become very rare

As a cyclist I can easily hear vehicles about to pass who who are only doing 30 or 40, they don't need to be doing 60 or 70 to hear them. But as I'm sure you are aware I'm talking about general backgrounfd noise, I would have thought if you live rural you would know exactly what I'm talking about.

And we also have the lowest death rate on the road - what better proof that lower speed limits reduces the carnage.

 

[Munroast]

Car speedometers have to be accurate within a tolerance, but that is not equal -they are set to over read.

A sat nav will give pretty accurate reading for speed -less so on hills

The law used to be a cars speedometer could over-read by up to 10% but must never ever under-read. Big fines if they under-read

and the more they over-read the higher the mpg looks, quite an incentive for a car maker, it looks like it goes very fast and doesn't use much fuel! surely the motor industry would not hoodwink us like that - or would they?

 

[motorbiking]

As a cyclist also, I do not rely on hearing, approaching vehicles. I maintain regular shoulder checks, known as life savers.

It is really essential to know what is going on around you and not rely on others

 

[Notch7]

.