Are speed cameras too conspicuous?

[Bletchleyite]

It always strikes me as being the case in this country that many people drive way too fast on country lanes, and probably a little slow on higher standard A roads and motorways.

The “40 mph everywhere” lot seem to be the worst in that respect.

I'm personally inclined to the view that NSL should be 50-60-70 instead of 60-70-70 for cars (70 could be specifically upsigned* on those A roads that are very close to motorway standard like the A55). Though on very small country lanes, often 30 is too fast. Perhaps that would be dealt with by saying 30 is the default not only for streetlit roads but also for any road where there is no continuous marking or shoulder dividing the traffic in opposite directions.

* 70 is actually signed on the A55 as it's a non-motorway special road which have no specific legal speed limit otherwise - so if NSL was signed instead there would be no limit other than those that apply to specific vehicles like lorries.

 

[bramling]

I'm personally inclined to the view that NSL should be 50-60-70 instead of 60-70-70 for cars (70 could be specifically upsigned* on those A roads that are very close to motorway standard like the A55). Though on very small country lanes, often 30 is too fast.

* 70 is actually signed on the A55 as it's a non-motorway special road which have no specific legal speed limit otherwise - so if NSL was signed instead there would be no limit other than those that apply to specific vehicles like lorries.

Personally I’d prefer focus to go into driver hazard perception. It’s infinitely preferable for to be able to make the correct speed judgements, rather than being perennially led by signs.

A speed limit isn’t going to protect anyone when there’s ice, snow or fog, for example.

Train drivers are generally much better trained for adjusting to conditions than car drivers are.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally I’d prefer focus to go into driver hazard perception. It’s infinitely preferable for to be able to make the correct speed judgements, rather than being perennially led by signs.

A speed limit isn’t going to protect anyone when there’s ice, snow or fog, for example.

Train drivers are generally much better trained for adjusting to conditions than car drivers are.

The fundamental problem is that that's fairly subjective - different people have different risk appetite. It's only really young drivers who don't to some extent understand risk as applied to speed, they just choose to accept it. The trouble is I can't choose whether to accept risk associated with *someone else's* speed.

 

[miami]

It always strikes me as being the case in this country that many people drive way too fast on country lanes, and probably a little slow on higher standard A roads and motorways.

Often country lanes are 60mph but wide straight A roads are 50mph

 

[Bald Rick]

If I charge an electric car, or a mobile phone, from my wall socket, and in the process generate a tonne of CO2, I don't pay £240, which seems wrong.

To generate a tonne of CO2 from driving a VW Golf diesel that averages 45-50mpg you’d need to drive about 4000 miles.

To generate a tonne of CO2 from driving a VW ID3 you’d need to drive 20,000 miles based on the current GB energy mix. If you charge your car overnight, then that number goes up significantly.

And you’d have to charge your phone for a loooong time to generate a tonne!

 

[liam456]

The fundamental problem is that that's fairly subjective - different people have different risk appetite. It's only really young drivers who don't to some extent understand risk as applied to speed, they just choose to accept it. The trouble is I can't choose whether to accept risk associated with *someone else's* speed.

Guilty as charged here (not so much not understanding, but accepting a higher threshold)

 

[miami]

To generate a tonne of CO2 from driving a VW ID3 you’d need to drive 20,000 miles based on the current GB energy mix. If you charge your car overnight, then that number goes up significantly.

And you’d have to charge your phone for a loooong time to generate a tonne!

Indeed you would, however a carbon tax of £240 per ton - on electricity, on petrol, on red diesel, on the gas my hot water burns, on airline fuel (or a proxy based on landing fees from length of flight, type of plane, load percentage etc), and crucially on imported goods and services, would be fair.

On current electric mix of 180g/kwh it would add about 3-4p/unit (assuming it replaced the vat currently charged), about a 20% increase.

 

[typefish]

Is there caselaw on whether "ambulance purposes" would only apply if in use by the ambulance service rather than instead of it?

No, however there is legislation that is "in the books" so to speak but never enacted that would limit the ambulance purposes exemption to those that are working for, or on behalf of a national ambulance authority

The fundamental problem is that that's fairly subjective - different people have different risk appetite. It's only really young drivers who don't to some extent understand risk as applied to speed, they just choose to accept it. The trouble is I can't choose whether to accept risk associated with *someone else's* speed.

Apologies for being awkward (and you don't have to answer this) but is this saying that you're choosing to accept the risk associated with a police officer doing 158mph in a 70mph limit, for no legitimate policing purpose?

Or you're accepting the risk of police officers inadvertently goading those who intend to flee from the police into doing higher speeds - such as 131mph in a 30mph limit?

Drawing this back to the topic, speed cameras wouldn't help with the things I've mentioned above.

They'll slow me down, but will not slow anyone down who is not caring at all - perhaps produce some photographic or video evidence for any court appearance and/or inquest.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Apologies for being awkward (and you don't have to answer this) but is this saying that you're choosing to accept the risk associated with a police officer doing 158mph in a 70mph limit, for no legitimate policing purpose?

I accept the risk of a Police Officer doing whatever speed is in their professional judgement necessary in the course of their role to prevent and prosecute crime, with blue lights in use.

Outside of that, it is not acceptable (even less acceptable than the general public, indeed, because if you enforce a rule you need to follow it strictly yourself) for them to exceed any speed limit.

Or you're accepting the risk of police officers inadvertently goading those who intend to flee from the police into doing higher speeds - such as 131mph in a 30mph limit?

This very much depends on what crime the person being pursued had committed. If it was a murderer or murderous terrorist on the loose, for example, then yes, I would consider any speed the Police judge necessary to be acceptable. If they were just chasing someone who was speeding (no other offence), then I'd suggest they might be best off taking a photograph of the car and sending a Notice of Intended Prosecution by post. Most of the time, this is likely to be the judgement they make, but everyone makes errors in the heat of the moment and nobody is perfect.

They'll slow me down, but will not slow anyone down who is not caring at all - perhaps produce some photographic or video evidence for any court appearance and/or inquest.

Most speeders are "casual speeders", a bit like most fare-dodgers are "casual fare-dodgers", i.e. visible enforcement will cause the law to be complied with in the vast majority of cases.

 

[miami]

Apologies for being awkward (and you don't have to answer this) but is this saying that you're choosing to accept the risk associated with a police officer doing 158mph in a 70mph limit, for no legitimate policing purpose?

Or you're accepting the risk of police officers inadvertently goading those who intend to flee from the police into doing higher speeds - such as 131mph in a 30mph limit?

Being immune from the absolute crime of breaking the speed limit doesn't mean they are immune from charges of dangerous driving

 

[ABB125]

Being immune from the absolute crime of breaking the speed limit doesn't mean they are immune from charges of dangerous driving

Indeed.
A friend of mine's older brother is in the police. He once recounted a story of his brother driving round a corner (or it might have been turning off at a junction) at speed. The phrase used was "if he hadn't been in a police car, he would have been arrested"!

 

[miami]

My sister was pulled over by a police car near for speeding about 25 years ago somewhere near Keele. Flashed her staffordshire police ID and a big smile.

"You're not in staffordshire any more" came the response from the Cheshire Police officer as he wrote out the ticket

 

[Bletchleyite]

Being immune from the absolute crime of breaking the speed limit doesn't mean they are immune from charges of dangerous driving

This too. Clearly there will be cases where going very fast is justified, and cases where it's not. 150mph past a school would be pushing it for anything beyond the car being known to contain a bomb or similar, as that's extremely high risk. 150mph on an empty motorway at 3am clearly much easier to justify.

 

[py_megapixel]

No it's not.

Physics applies equally to people driving safely for their own personal enjoyment and people driving to save a life - unless you've found a magical way that the possession of blue lights somehow makes a driver infallible and immune from the effects of making a mistake when under "blue mist"? Please, let me know.

Firstly, people driving for their own enjoyment and people driving to save a life have different stakes.
If the former is slowed down, someone is a bit late home.
If the latter is slowed down, it's likely someone will experience significant delays to their medical treatment, which can sadly lead to death
Therefore, the safety implications of an ambulance driver speeding could be considered to be outweighed by the urgency of their duty, while the safety implications of someone driving for another purpose could not.

In addition, please go back and read these paragraphs which i wrote, particularly the bits in bold:

Ambulance drivers for example are highly trained in the safety of driving at speed and there is the societal understanding that an ambulance on blue lights is performing an extremely important duty and they are the priority on the roads; this is why car drivers are seen changing lane or even mounting the kerb to allow an ambulance to pass along a busy street.

Private drivers on the other hand take a few lessons, and could have had no experience of handling any kind of vehicle on the road beforehand. They then sit a couple of tests and they're good to go, and will probably never even consider retaking any kind of course on it for the rest of their life, excluding a court order to do so or the somewhat unlikely scenario that they apply for a driving-centric job which requires additional training, such as HGV driving.

A single carriageway road where I used to live was good for a safe 80mph

But was it really?
Imagine a pedestrian trying to cross that road, or even walking along it.
Clearly I don't know the exact scenario, but I do know of many roads which are perfectly safe for 80mph in a car but can't be 80mph because it would pose a hazard to other road users.
It's not just about cars, you know.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But was it really?
Imagine a pedestrian trying to cross that road, or even walking along it.
Clearly I don't know the exact scenario, but I do know of many roads which are perfectly safe for 80mph in a car but can't be 80mph because it would pose a hazard to other road users.
It's not just about cars, you know.

Lower speeds on single vs. dual are also about severity of collisions, which like it or not (I'd imagine "not", really ) will occur. The energy to dissipate from a collision with 120mph closing speed is much lower than from 160mph - isn't it exponential with speed?

A dual carriageway, even one without an Armco, is less likely to end up with head-on collisions because overtaking doesn't cause conflicts and the kerb has a chance of deflecting the car back.

 

[py_megapixel]

In general, I get something of an attitude of there being some kind of sacred right to drive from some of the posts in this thread, and from multiple users. Such a right absolutely does not exist, and the belief it does, even if subconcious, is a dangerous thing which holds back the adoption of greener, more efficient, safer and all-round superior modes of travel.

 

[edwin_m]

Lower speeds on single vs. dual are also about severity of collisions, which like it or not (I'd imagine "not", really ) will occur. The energy to dissipate from a collision with 120mph closing speed is much lower than from 160mph - isn't it exponential with speed?

Goes as the square of speed.

 

[Bald Rick]

Such a right absolutely does not exist

It does though, once you have your licence.

 

[ta-toget]

It does though, once you have your licence.

Though the licence can be revoked, especially if rules are not followed.

 

[bramling]

In general, I get something of an attitude of there being some kind of sacred right to drive from some of the posts in this thread, and from multiple users. Such a right absolutely does not exist, and the belief it does, even if subconcious, is a dangerous thing which holds back the adoption of greener, more efficient, safer and all-round superior modes of travel.

You will find a substantial proportion of the population would believe they have a right to drive, like it or not, rightly or wrongly.

I do wish some of them would make just a little more effort to drive competently, though.

 

[Bald Rick]

Though the licence can be revoked, especially if rules are not followed.

Indeed. Once you have a licence you absolutely have a right to drive, within the law.

 

[DustyBin]

In general, I get something of an attitude of there being some kind of sacred right to drive from some of the posts in this thread, and from multiple users. Such a right absolutely does not exist, and the belief it does, even if subconcious, is a dangerous thing which holds back the adoption of greener, more efficient, safer and all-round superior modes of travel.

If by all-round superior you mean slower, less comfortable, less reliable, less convenient and more expensive then I’d agree! Sorry but that’s the harsh truth. I’m a fan of rail travel in particular which is why I’m a member of this forum, but outside of major cities (you could argue outside of London) it simply can’t compete with the private car. There will always be people like me for whom a car is essential for work (although I do use the train or plane for long journeys) but there are plenty of people who could feasibly use public transport for their daily commute who choose not to. That’s as much a reflection of the quality of the public transport offering as it is people’s sense of entitlement to drive (which they do have incidentally, like it or not!).

It does though, once you have your licence.

Agreed, as per above.

You will find a substantial proportion of the population would believe they have a right to drive, like it or not, rightly or wrongly.

I do wish some of them would make just a little more effort to drive competently, though.

Again I agree, especially in regard to your final sentence!

 

[robbeech]

Yet actual data refutes your assertions.

We can look in RAS50008 and see that of the 314 of 1421 fatal accidents had speed as a contributory factor, or 22%, with 7% travelling too fast for conditions and 15% exceeding the limit.

If we look at all reported accidents including non fatal, this drops to 11%

But you don't like actual data as it doesn't back up your defense of real problems, like drivers overtaking bikes too close, or drivers driving on pavements, or drivers tailgating, or indeed bad junction design.

We can use and / or manipulate the data in whichever way suits our agenda, and that applies to everyone. We could easily say that EVERY accident is cause by speed as they'd all have been prevented had the car been stationary. It doesn't help though.

I accept the risk of a Police Officer doing whatever speed is in their professional judgement necessary in the course of their role to prevent and prosecute crime, with blue lights in use.

Outside of that, it is not acceptable (even less acceptable than the general public, indeed, because if you enforce a rule you need to follow it strictly yourself) for them to exceed any speed limit.



This very much depends on what crime the person being pursued had committed. If it was a murderer or murderous terrorist on the loose, for example, then yes, I would consider any speed the Police judge necessary to be acceptable. If they were just chasing someone who was speeding (no other offence), then I'd suggest they might be best off taking a photograph of the car and sending a Notice of Intended Prosecution by post. Most of the time, this is likely to be the judgement they make, but everyone makes errors in the heat of the moment and nobody is perfect.

Unfortunately, in the real world it is fairly common to see this immunity abused. There is a relatively blind junction at the end of my road where a left turn can be dangerous and a right turn something i tend to try and avoid in heavy rain / poor visibility. It's blind from a bend on the left (complete with a token row of senior citizen's bungalows" with no parking, and a bus stop, with the brow of a hill (and the opposite bus stop) on the right. It's a 30mph limit yet many cars exceed this, a small number excessively. The consistently fastest vehicles to pass are the police, travelling between areas (non emergency travel), with estimated speeds in excess of 50mph. I've had them overtake me more than once and estimate up to double the speed limit. Whilst ever they don't kill someone they'll continue to get away with it, but the life of a person seems quite a price to pay for action to be taken in my mind.
I can't be the only one that hasn't been overtaken by a police vehicle or paramedic to see the blue lights appear to go through a fixed camera (there's that word that brings it back on topic) at speed before being switched off again. Many more examples of those few giving their colleagues who are trying their best a bad name.

Being immune from the absolute crime of breaking the speed limit doesn't mean they are immune from charges of dangerous driving

In theory, although we've all seen the stories of high ranking officers getting a little slap on the wrist for 130mph + on holiday with the wife.

 

[miami]

We can use and / or manipulate the data in whichever way suits our agenda, and that applies to everyone. We could easily say that EVERY accident is cause by speed as they'd all have been prevented had the car been stationary. It doesn't help though.

The "statistics can lie so all statistics are lies" fallacy is as false as it it boring.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do Police cars not now have some sort of data recorder that would record speed, the use of "blues" etc, so they could easily establish if they were being misused? If not perhaps they should.

 

[typefish]

Being immune from the absolute crime of breaking the speed limit doesn't mean they are immune from charges of dangerous driving

Not if the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021 receives royal assent in its current state

Police officers and other delegated persons are now treated as a special class of citizen, with the offences of careless and dangerous driving being compared to that of a safe, competent and trained constable

If the actions I have posted above (goading in a residential area at 131mph, 158mph in a 70 with no lights, a police car clipping a kerb and crashing at 110mph in a 40mph limit etc) is not considered careless or dangerous driving under the current sentencing regime, then in essence blanket protection is offered under this new regime.

 

[AM9]

Not if the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021 receives royal assent in its current state

Police officers and other delegated persons are now treated as a special class of citizen, with the offences of careless and dangerous driving being compared to that of a safe, competent and trained constable

If the actions I have posted above (goading in a residential area at 131mph, 158mph in a 70 with no lights, a police car clipping a kerb and crashing at 110mph in a 40mph limit etc) is not considered careless or dangerous driving under the current sentencing regime, then in essence blanket protection is offered under this new regime.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread. The police would normally know exactly where the speed cameras are, and how visible they are to drivers not keeping to the limit for the road.

 

[PeterC]

My sister was pulled over by a police car near for speeding about 25 years ago somewhere near Keele. Flashed her staffordshire police ID and a big smile.

"You're not in staffordshire any more" came the response from the Cheshire Police officer as he wrote out the ticket

A colleague who was dating a City of London officer said that the Met would have the same reaction, however once they passed Brook Street roundabout on the A12 he could put his foot down as Essex Police would be fine.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

I was just looking at a website for an attraction I might be visiting, I read a 'warning' about 'numerous safety cameras' on the way there, felt a bit sick for a moment.

But safety cameras are as rare as hen's teeth, I know that but visitors might not know that. Not sure what to think, warning of nonexistent cameras might be effective in stopping speeding crime.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was just looking at a website for an attraction I might be visiting, I read a 'warning' about 'numerous safety cameras' on the way there, felt a bit sick for a moment.

But safety cameras are as rare as hen's teeth, I know that but visitors might not know that. Not sure what to think, warning of nonexistent cameras might be effective in stopping speeding crime.

Not at all unusual to see long stretches of road with camera signs but very few cameras or even just the occasional visit by the camera van. I guess it must work or they'd not waste money on the signs.