Are speed cameras too conspicuous?

[LSWR Cavalier]

Probably like advertising, half the money spent on it is wasted, but nobody knows which half.

 

[ABB125]

Where I live, there's a major A road, with a 50 limit through the village. There are speed camera signs at either end of he village (big yellow ones). I've never known any speed camera to visit the village (cameravan) in the 18 years I've been here!

 

[Dr_Paul]

Were you the guy I passed on an empty motorway who was doing 50 in the middle lane one night last year?

I had that once on the M25. I was doing 70mph on a very empty road, so I was in the inside lane. A bloke was doing a lot less was in the middle lane, so, not wishing to 'undertake' him, I had to go across into the fast lane to overtake him.

What is the point of 20mph limits on main roads? Part of the A217 near Mitcham is a dual carriageway, but has a 20 mph limit, which few seem to comply with. If it is to reduce the number of people injured on the roads, are there any before-and-after data setting out whether this objective has been achieved?

The Borough of Richmond has put a 20mph limit on practically every road, save the A316, which is still 30 or 40mph. This makes sense with narrow roads or areas with many pedestrians, but seems to me a bit excessive with wide A roads with good visibility and few pedestrians.

One problem with 20mph roads is that many 'lycra boy' cyclists have no qualms about overtaking or 'undertaking' motors travelling at 20mph, as their type of bike can easily do that sort of speed, especially downhill. At rush hours especially, this makes driving all the more difficult as one has to be on the lookout for speeding bikes, as well as the usual things, and they are easily missed because of mirror blindspots. I've also noticed that quite a few 'lycra boys' don't use bike lanes where they provided, but prefer to stay on the road. Whether they think that 'bike lanes are for girls' or don't like being held up by folk such as me who ride along at around 15mph, I don't know.

 

[MotCO]

I've also noticed that quite a few 'lycra boys' don't use bike lanes where they provided, but prefer to stay on the road. Whether they think that 'bike lanes are for girls' or don't like being held up by folk such as me who ride along at around 15mph, I don't know.

Since Councils seem to take great delight in providing sparsely used cycle lanes, I think that it should be an offence not to use a cycle path when one is provided, with confiscation of cycles being the punishment.

 

[dm1]

Since Councils seem to take great delight in providing sparsely used cycle lanes, I think that it should be an offence not to use a cycle path when one is provided, with confiscation of cycles being the punishment.

The trouble with that is that so much bike infrastructure is so poorly designed (particularly older stuff, but even many modern schemes) that using it can be significantly more dangerous than using the road.

Personally, I use cycle lanes where they are safe, but stick to the road where they are not. I would much rather risk a fine or slow down some drivers slightly than have an accident (with potentially fatal consequences).

The only way to make roads safe is to provide infrastructure that caters to pedestrians, cyclists and cars, generally segregated where possible, particularly at conflict points like junctions, where poor cycle infrastructure often ends without warning leaving those using it in extremely dangerous situations.

As for 'sparsely used' - on the one hand, people will only use them if there is a safe route from where they are to where they want to go, a cycle lane leading from nowhere to nowhere is useless, there needs to be a network. On the other hand, just because a cycle lane looks empty, doesn't mean it isn't being used. Cyclists are much faster than pedestrians and much smaller than cars, a bike lane approximately the width of a car lane can carry as much or even more bike traffic than said car lane can carry cars, whilst looking more or less empty.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Borough of Richmond has put a 20mph limit on practically every road, save the A316, which is still 30 or 40mph.

That reminds me of a Saturday evening about 17 years ago, I was driving up the M3 heading to Richmond at a fair lick when somewhere near Sunbury a boy racer in an Audi S3 came steaming up behind me doing about 120; I gave it a bit of pedal for a bit, but decided I was too sensible. At Hospital Bridge roundabout (in the 40 zone) he was waiting at the lights in the outside lane, with the inside lane empty, I kept rolling and when they went to green I had better reactions, got ahead, but quickly eased off as I don’t like going too far over the limit (honest!) The passenger gave me the finger as they zoomed off. Nice.

Anyway at the next island near Twickenham stadium, he was waiting at the lights in the outside lane alongside a Merc, and was obviously up for seconds. Unfortunately for him he didn’t realise it was an SLR McLaren (c/w German plates, S-LR 1001, I guess possibly a McLaren test driver). The lights turned, and the SLR absolutely toasted him, going round the next roundabout as if on rails. I was a long way back performing the role of medical car it seemed. However, the lights at the St Margaret’s Island were red, and the rematch was on. I suspect the SLR driver was too clever for the boy racer, and pretended to be slow off the mark - Audi got ahead, the SLR came back quickly, the Audi pressed on.... then the SLR threw all the anchors out with his carbon brakes to be at 30mph for the camera before Twick Bridge. Flash Flash - the Audi must have been doing at least 90. Done up like a kipper. I’ve always wondered how long his ban was.

 

[ABB125]

That reminds me of a Saturday evening about 17 years ago, I was driving up the M3 heading to Richmond at a fair lick when somewhere near Sunbury a boy racer in an Audi S3 came steaming up behind me doing about 120; I gave it a bit of pedal for a bit, but decided I was too sensible. At Hospital Bridge roundabout (in the 40 zone) he was waiting at the lights in the outside lane, with the inside lane empty, I kept rolling and when they went to green I had better reactions, got ahead, but quickly eased off as I don’t like going too far over the limit (honest!) The passenger gave me the finger as they zoomed off. Nice.

Anyway at the next island near Twickenham stadium, he was waiting at the lights in the outside lane alongside a Merc, and was obviously up for seconds. Unfortunately for him he didn’t realise it was an SLR McLaren (c/w German plates, S-LR 1001, I guess possibly a McLaren test driver). The lights turned, and the SLR absolutely toasted him, going round the next roundabout as if on rails. I was a long way back performing the role of medical car it seemed. However, the lights at the St Margaret’s Island were red, and the rematch was on. I suspect the SLR driver was too clever for the boy racer, and pretended to be slow off the mark - Audi got ahead, the SLR came back quickly, the Audi pressed on.... then the SLR threw all the anchors out with his carbon brakes to be at 30mph for the camera before Twick Bridge. Flash Flash - the Audi must have been doing at least 90. Done up like a kipper. I’ve always wondered how long his ban was.

(There's not really anything I can say apart from that!)

EDIT: actually, I could engage pedant mode and point out that you would actually have been on the A316, not the M3.

 

[MotCO]

The trouble with that is that so much bike infrastructure is so poorly designed (particularly older stuff, but even many modern schemes) that using it can be significantly more dangerous than using the road.

Personally, I use cycle lanes where they are safe, but stick to the road where they are not. I would much rather risk a fine or slow down some drivers slightly than have an accident (with potentially fatal consequences).

Outside my house they have narrowed a busy road to create a cycle path. The road is now so narrow that traffic cannot overtake buses at a busy bus stop which causes congestion even in these Covid-restricted times. The road is also on a direct route to the local hospital, and ambulances are now being held up.

As for 'sparsely used' - on the one hand, people will only use them if there is a safe route from where they are to where they want to go, a cycle lane leading from nowhere to nowhere is useless, there needs to be a network. On the other hand, just because a cycle lane looks empty, doesn't mean it isn't being used. Cyclists are much faster than pedestrians and much smaller than cars, a bike lane approximately the width of a car lane can carry as much or even more bike traffic than said car lane can carry cars, whilst looking more or less empty.

The road is now too narrow for cyclists to ride safely, but I have only seen three cyclists in three months use the cycle path.

 

[Bald Rick]

(There's not really anything I can say apart from that!)

EDIT: actually, I could engage pedant mode and point out that you would actually have been on the A316, not the M3.

Sorry yes, I should have made that clear. Very definitely on the 316.

 

[AM9]

Outside my house they have narrowed a busy road to create a cycle path. The road is now so narrow that traffic cannot overtake buses at a busy bus stop which causes congestion even in these Covid-restricted times. The road is also on a direct route to the local hospital, and ambulances are now being held up. ...

There are quite a few roads where traffic cannot pass a bus that is waiting at a bus stop. Many of those arrangements are deliberate to allow buses to pull away from stops.
Far too many drivers refuse to allow buses to rejoin the flow of traffic when pulling away from bus stops. This devalues the quality of bus services. The response from some local authorities was to narrow the road where the bus stops, forcing following traffic to wait until the bus leaves the stop. Drivers may not like that, but it is a result of other drivers ignoring the rules about allowing buses to pull out.

 

[dm1]

It is now fairly common practice to physically prevent buses being overtaken at bus stops in urban areas, partly for the reasons stated above, but also for pedestrian safety. Doing so for example allows pedestrians to cross the road in front of the bus without risking being hit by a driver overtaking, whose view of the pedestrian is blocked by the bus.

Whilst this might cause some congestion behind the bus for a short period, generally it doesn't have a massive impact on road capacity or journey times for cars - in a city there will be congestion in any case, its just a case of shifting it to somewhere else, where it can provide a safety benefit as well.

 

[Dr_Paul]

There have been examples of the building of bike lanes that have reduced the road width to what I feel is rather dangerously narrow. One example I know is the A307 Portsmouth Road in Kingston; it has a useful and well-used bike lane, but the roadway has been narrowed to the point where two vans can just about pass each other.

The worst result I know of building a bike lane is at the south end of Blackfriars Bridge, where the northbound carriageway has been brought down to one lane, thus creating a bottleneck that clogs up all the northbound traffic, including buses. I know that the official intention is greatly to reduce private vehicle use in Central London, but there will still be delivery and construction traffic, and I really feel that this particular part of a busy road has been badly thought out.

 

[edwin_m]

There have been examples of the building of bike lanes that have reduced the road width to what I feel is rather dangerously narrow. One example I know is the A307 Portsmouth Road in Kingston; it has a useful and well-used bike lane, but the roadway has been narrowed to the point where two vans can just about pass each other.

Conversely many roads are far too wide for their legally permitted speeds, and this encourages speeding whether deliberate or accidental. Introducing some obvious hazards can actually make the road safer, because drivers see the danger and slow down.

 

[AM9]

There have been examples of the building of bike lanes that have reduced the road width to what I feel is rather dangerously narrow. One example I know is the A307 Portsmouth Road in Kingston; it has a useful and well-used bike lane, but the roadway has been narrowed to the point where two vans can just about pass each other.

The worst result I know of building a bike lane is at the south end of Blackfriars Bridge, where the northbound carriageway has been brought down to one lane, thus creating a bottleneck that clogs up all the northbound traffic, including buses. I know that the official intention is greatly to reduce private vehicle use in Central London, but there will still be delivery and construction traffic, and I really feel that this particular part of a busy road has been badly thought out.

Neither of your examples are 'dangerously narrow'. If vehicles can just pass then they will adjust their speeds to pass at a safe speed. The A307 is a two lane (one in each direction) road from the Scilly Isles roundabout right through the centre of Kingston up towards Richmond. Much of it south of Kingston centre has a decent bidirectional cycle path so all those driving on the road just need to keep their speed within the limit, (20mph on some stretches).
The A201 is another two lane road from St Georges Circus northwards, the road widens to provide exit lanes at junctions and bypassing buses standing at bus stops.
Both of thes roads have TfL bus services running along them so there would be little point in making them too narrow for buses and there aren't that many cars or vans anywhere near 2.5m wide, (unless every car on those roads is a Hummer).

 

[Bald Rick]

Neither of your examples are 'dangerously narrow'.

Exactly. The first thing my late uncle - a former traffic cop and driving examiner - taught me on my first driving ‘lesson’ with him was that no roads are dangerous. They are simply a strip of tarmac - how can they be dangerous? The dangerous part is the people behind the wheel.

 

[Dr_Paul]

Neither of your examples are 'dangerously narrow'.

I didn't say that Blackfriars Road was dangerous, I said it was 'the worst result I know of building a bike lane', as what used to be a wide road -- two lanes in each direction with continuous bus lanes, if my memory is correct -- is now just one lane each way, so that all motor traffic is funneled through one lane, which often gets clogged. Buses have to share this one lane with all other traffic, whereas in the past buses would go along their own lane and pass by the clogged traffic. Slowing buses to the speed of all other traffic, thereby holding up public transport, is not what I call progress.

I have driven along the A307 quite a few times in my average size motor, at the requisite speed, since the bike lane was built, and find the clearance is sufficient for ordinary motors coming the other way, but is tight for vans, lorries and buses. Also, for much of the length of the bike lane there is no white line down the centre of the road, which seems to encourage some drivers to move away from the kerb and drive more towards the centre of the road. I find that stretch of road quite uncomfortable to drive in anything other than light traffic.

 

[AM9]

I didn't say that Blackfriars Road was dangerous, I said it was 'the worst result I know of building a bike lane', as what used to be a wide road -- two lanes in each direction with continuous bus lanes, if my memory is correct -- is now just one lane each way, so that all motor traffic is funneled through one lane, which often gets clogged. Buses have to share this one lane with all other traffic, whereas in the past buses would go along their own lane and pass by the clogged traffic. Slowing buses to the speed of all other traffic, thereby holding up public transport, is not what I call progress.

I have driven along the A307 quite a few times in my average size motor, at the requisite speed, since the bike lane was built, and find the clearance is sufficient for ordinary motors coming the other way, but is tight for vans, lorries and buses. Also, for much of the length of the bike lane there is no white line down the centre of the road, which seems to encourage some drivers to move away from the kerb and drive more towards the centre of the road. I find that stretch of road quite uncomfortable to drive in anything other than light traffic.

In post #402, you wrote: "There have been examples of the building of bike lanes that have reduced the road width to what I feel is rather dangerously narrow" which is what I am taking issue with. Making a road narrow does not make it dangerous. The road is an inanimate object and as Bald Rick says "... how can they be dangerous?" The practice of making vehicle carriageways narrower, whether it is to squeeze in a dedicated provision for other highway users or not is generally undertaken as a safety measure. In the case of both the roads that you highlighted in that post, the motor driven traffic is forced to proceed at a safe speed (within the statutory limit for those roads). As you imply, the speed has reduced since the changes which means that vehicles will be travelling at lower speeds, with no overtaking, - effectively making the road safer for all users. That sounds eminently like progress to me, and yes I am a car driver, as well as a bus passenger, cyclist and pedestrian.

Protecting all road users is going to be ever more important in large conurbations, especially as there is an urgent need to reduce the speed and hence volume of private vehicles within congested areas. Making more road space for the convenience of more private vehicles on the roads is the antithesis of that aim. Interestingly, you have noticed the effect of road narrowing which is clearly inconvenient to you personally, but your argument that safety is adversely affected does not agree with current experience. Eventually, normal daytime driving along those roads by private motorists will be reduced, bringing improved safety, more equality for other road users and lower pollution levels. Maybe some time soon, you will relieve yourself of the discomfort that you suffer from when using them in anything other than light traffic.

The subject of cyclists not using reserved cycle paths where provided is discussed here from time to time. Clearly, the cyclist is safer on those paths, but if they choose to mix it with the motor traffic, that is their perogative. The highway code (and the la) gives guidance and rules on how to drive safely when there are low speed vehicles on the road. Those that ignore them are the ones creating dangerous conditions.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Some cyclists prefer to use the road, often they may legally use either road or cycleway/path/lane. Some cycle lanes are very badly designed, too narrow, or one must yield at every junction when going straight ahead!

Back on topic, I saw some cops doing speed checks Saturday. Today I read that they had been 'successful', dozens of speeders shall be receiving plain brown envelopes.

 

[johncrossley]

The main purpose of protected cycle paths is to encourage people to cycle who would be put off by sharing the road with heavy motorised traffic. The kind of cyclist who uses the road when a good cycle path is provided (for example, one that isn't poorly designed or inconvenient) was already cycling before cycle path construction. Additional delays caused by road narrowings as a result of cycle path installation are offset by reduction in delays caused by closures of the whole road by the emergency services following cycling accidents.

 

[Gathursty]

I find many of the excuses people come up with to not stick at whatever the speed limit is or within about 5mph either side of it to be laughable.

Friday night I saw a red transit van with a trailer on the M6 from Leyland to Charnock Richard doing over 90mph and I just caught a glimpse of the van at the slip road for the services. Speeding for the toilet probably won't cut it if pulled over.

 

[181]

Anyone wondering why cyclists don't always use cycle facilities might find it interesting to look at the examples on this site.

 

[Applepie356]

Is it a legal requirement for speed cameras to be yellow? There seems to be a lot of conflicting information online.

If I had it my way speed cameras would be hidden a lot better. Maybe then people would think twice about speeding knowing that there are hidden cameras out there. Driving should be treated as a privilege, not a right.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it a legal requirement for speed cameras to be yellow? There seems to be a lot of conflicting information online.

If I had it my way speed cameras would be hidden a lot better. Maybe then people would think twice about speeding knowing that there are hidden cameras out there. Driving should be treated as a privilege, not a right.

I understand the rule is that if the local authority wants to keep the revenue they have to be yellow. They can be another colour but if they are they don't get the revenue.

 

[liam456]

If I had it my way speed cameras would be hidden a lot better. Maybe then people would think twice about speeding knowing that there are hidden cameras out there. Driving should be treated as a privilege, not a right.

I think slowing down for dangerous areas where speeding cameras are present and conspicuous is much better than having people speed though accident blackspots and only get the ticket two weeks later with only a rough indication of where they were caught. Speed cameras just for the sake of puritanical 'speeding is bad and should never be done' is much worse than a sensible harm reduction policy where people slow down where they actually need to.

 

[DustyBin]

I think slowing down for dangerous areas where speeding cameras are present and conspicuous is much better than having people speed though accident blackspots and only get the ticket two weeks later with only a rough indication of where they were caught. Speed cameras just for the sake of puritanical 'speeding is bad and should never be done' is much worse than a sensible harm reduction policy where people slow down where they actually need to.

Agreed. I explained my reasoning back in post #310.

 

[liam456]

Agreed. I explained my reasoning back in post #310.

Just had a re-read of your post there, glad to see my uninformed views are actually backed up by someone who knows what they're talking about!

As for the 80mph thing, I think we have a pretty sensible balance where motorways which are busy enough to warrant serious speed enforcement already have it (or will soon), and ones where it's perfectly sensible to do 80mph, everyone already does! (M40, M6+A74(M)+M74 from Lancaster upwards, A1(M) from Ferrybridge)

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Driving at more than 70 mph is breaking the law in the UK, that is reason enough not to do it.

 

[DustyBin]

Just had a re-read of your post there, glad to see my uninformed views are actually backed up by someone who knows what they're talking about!

As for the 80mph thing, I think we have a pretty sensible balance where motorways which are busy enough to warrant serious speed enforcement already have it (or will soon), and ones where it's perfectly sensible to do 80mph, everyone already does! (M40, M6+A74(M)+M74 from Lancaster upwards, A1(M) from Ferrybridge)

Yes there are some 'fast' sections of motorway up north! It appears to be tolerated by the police as well, they don't bother you unless you're taking the proverbial.

Driving at more than 70 mph is breaking the law in the UK, that is reason enough not to do it.

You are of course correct, however when those upholding said law are happy to (unofficially) relax it people will inevitably take advantage.

 

[ABB125]

Yes there are some 'fast' sections of motorway up north! It appears to be tolerated by the police as well, they don't bother you unless you're taking the proverbial.

The "x + 10% rule" (sometimes x + 10% +3, or similar variations).

 

[Bletchleyite]

The "x + 10% rule" (sometimes x + 10% +3, or similar variations).

10% + 2mph is what it nominally is (though the Police are not obliged to stick to that, and Northamptonshire is specifically noted for being rather stricter). However car speedometers (but not sat-navs!) read higher than the actual speed because they are not legally allowed to read under, so in reality if you're doing about an indicated 83-85 (actual probably 79 or below) or so you are unlikely to be in receipt of unwanted attention unless you're doing something else dangerous e.g. undertaking, weaving in and out of lanes or tailgating.