Are speed cameras too conspicuous?

[Bletchleyite]

I live near a de-restricted dual carriageway in north Milton Keynes, and simply based on the pitch of the exhaust note, I get the impression that motorcyclists are never, ever caught speeding. Is that because the m'cyclists wear radar absorptive clothing? Easy enough to incorporate in the padding, I would guess.

There is near to no speed enforcement on the grid system at all, largely because the distance between roundabouts means that in most cars speeding would be difficult so there is relatively little speeding. Motorcycles are probably the exception, plus the odd sports car at 2am. A couple of longer stretches, e.g. Standing Way from the offset double roundabout to the next one towards Kingston, are an exception, and so if you ever see any enforcement it'll be there, that or the 40mph sections but I've never, ever seen it.

Similarly on the A5D I've heard of people using it to "test" cars out in the early hours, but mostly the prevailing speed on that (limit 70) is about 60-65.

TBH there's relatively little speeding by general motorists in MK because there are no "silly" low limits at all, they are all more than reasonable. If anything, driving about 10 below the limit on the grid is more usual these days, to save fuel. The main misbehaviour you get is people cutting people up due to impatience, but because everyone expects people to do it it doesn't cause many accidents.

 

[edwin_m]

At the minute there are a few roads near me, one in particular near my industrial unit, that have what I call unrealistic speed limits ... there have been residents noise complaints.

You seem to be suggesting that residents concerned about excessive noise are less important than drivers who want to go faster. If there's a signed speed limit less than what the road would appear (at first glance) to be suitable for then there may be a reason that the casual driver isn't aware of, rather than just dismissing it as unrealistic.

Having said that, there are roads that appear to be suitable for much higher speeds than would be allowed or actually safe. I used to work on Pride Park in Derby, a development of the 1990s and 2000s where the roads were laid out wide with generous radii and (until someone got killed) not a single pedestrian crossing. There were also several car dealers on the estate, where employees are probably more likely to be petrolheads, and people test-driving vehicles may not know the area and/or might want to check them out at higher speed. A fair proportion of the traffic would be going significantly over the permitted 30mph.

 

[dakta]

Most engines make the most noise from PCP so it's loading that will change noise, not necessarily speed - yes there will be some road contact noise but I doubt that's significantly different.

So whilst people might load up there cars to 100% to get to 40 I think it's a bit moot because most will cruise up to it. I think the noise complaint likely comes from boy racers with big exhausts or straight through systems designed to be as noisy as possible. As a vehicle tuner I detest the type.

As for the road being set unrealistically low, the reason I say that is because nobody can actually do it. The limits too slow for the road, people can't do it and so >99% speed.

You seem to be suggesting that residents concerned about excessive noise are less important than drivers who want to go faster.

I wasn't going to respond to the above assertion as it wasn't actually that pertinent to the point I was making, I only included it as an example reason why the limit was set lower, but yes I do think there comes a point where people who live next to high speed roads should be told 'hang on you chose to live here' rather than trying to make the world fit their ideals.

I wouldn't buy a house backing onto the WCML and then request a speed reduction...getting people from A to B at 125mph would be more important than me in that respect.

Obviously if the road genuinely wants a speed reduction for reasons more important than people selfishly wanting the world to fit their ideals that's another kettle of fish.

 

[edwin_m]

That's exactly what OP appears to be suggesting, and I fully agree with them.

Not sure quite what you are referring to, as you are the OP on this thread, so agreeing with yourself is probably not too surprising. However if you're saying that residents should have no right of redress against overly noisy traffic then I would disagree absolutely.

Most engines make the most noise from PCP so it's loading that will change noise, not necessarily speed - yes there will be some road contact noise but I doubt that's significantly different.

So whilst people might load up there cars to 100% to get to 40 I think it's a bit moot because most will cruise up to it. I think the noise complaint likely comes from boy racers with big exhausts or straight through systems designed to be as noisy as possible. As a vehicle tuner I detest the type.

As for the road being set unrealistically low, the reason I say that is because nobody can actually do it. The limits too slow for the road, people can't do it and so >99% speed.

Are you saying that vehicles on Personal Contract Purchase are noisier than others, or should you be defining your abbreviations as required by forum rules?

It's not physically more difficult to drive at 20mph on a wide straight road than on a narrow one with speed bumps - in fact it's probably easier as there's no need to slow down and accelerate back so once at the correct speed you just stick to it. It's a question of mindset, getting rid of the arrogant view that you know better than the people who set the speed.

I do think there comes a point where people who live next to high speed roads should be told 'hang on you chose to live here' rather than trying to make the world fit their ideals.

I wouldn't buy a house backing onto the WCML and then request a speed reduction...getting people from A to B at 125mph would be more important than me in that respect.

Obviously if the road genuinely wants a speed reduction for reasons more important than people selfishly wanting the world to fit their ideals that's another kettle of fish.

Noting your edit, it's probably a question of degree. A particular road may have got more busy.

I'd also favour enforceable penalties for excessively noisy vehicles. I believe this can be automatically monitored by something similar to a speed camera … which I guess raises the question of whether they should be conspicuous…

 

[py_megapixel]

Not sure quite what you are referring to, as you are the OP on this thread, so agreeing with yourself is probably not too surprising. However if you're saying that residents should have no right of redress against overly noisy traffic then I would disagree absolutely.

Sorry - by "OP" I meant the person you were quoting. (I'm aware this was incorrect terminology).

I also misread your post, to the point where my comment above was completely incorrect. I believe that noise control is more important than increased speed limits.

 

[MotCO]

As for how they measure it, I assume that they plan to carry out air quality comparisons and potentially even traffic analysis at some point - though Covid and the ensuing financial crisis may postpone these somewhat. They had a report done back in 2012 on some of the 20mph zones and limits they had then. Although I'm too tired to actually read through the report in full right now - the conclusions are interesting:

Thanks for the link - it makes interesting reading. Firstly, although acknowledging that the samples are small, the number of personal injury accidents increased after the 20 mph limits were introduced, and the reduction in actual speeds reduced by around 1 mph, to 20 mph for the average, but higher at 26 mph for the 85% percentile, which implies that at least 85% of motorists do not heed the speed limit.

I therefore deduce that the reduction in speed limits does not achieve any reduction in accidents; if anything they actually increase. There is nothing in the report about pollution, but given that speeds are essentially unchanged, there cannot be much improvement. Therefore a failure and waste of money?

 

[DJ_K666]

If you can't see, you don't overtake. That's pretty basic stuff, to be honest.

Exactly. It's a shame some dont understand that, they just see a big bus blocking the road. I've seen them try coming round me and not see the vehicle coming the other way in my time.

 

[Mag_seven]

We have had a number of reports about the use of abbreviations and acronyms in this thread.

Can I remind posters of the following forum rule regarding "jargon" (it mentions rail but the rule applies for all jargon)

Please remember many members do not understand rail “jargon” (including acronyms, station codes and specialist terms). Such terms should be correctly defined the first time they are used; codes and abbreviations must not be made up.

Can I request all posters comply with this requirement.

thank you.

 

[Domh245]

Thanks for the link - it makes interesting reading. Firstly, although acknowledging that the samples are small, the number of personal injury accidents increased after the 20 mph limits were introduced, and the reduction in actual speeds reduced by around 1 mph, to 20 mph for the average, but higher at 26 mph for the 85% percentile, which implies that at least 85% of motorists do not heed the speed limit.

I therefore deduce that the reduction in speed limits does not achieve any reduction in accidents; if anything they actually increase. There is nothing in the report about pollution, but given that speeds are essentially unchanged, there cannot be much improvement. Therefore a failure and waste of money?

A slight increase in accidents in the limits areas (as opposed to 20mph zones with all their traffic 'calming' measures) but that could be down to other factors given the rather limited scope of the study. The key one was that there was a significant reduction in pedestrian and child accidents - Car to car incidents (and even car to bike incidents) are less of an issue than car to pedestrian incidents in terms of severity of outcome, something that isn't mentioned but I would expect would have shown an improvement

The speeds are very interesting - especially the fact that most of them were ignored . One limitation of the study is that they only consider average speeds and not any other statistical analysis. It is noticeable that with the 20mph limits the average speed became a lot closer to the speed limit. Whether this is because absolutely nothing changed and bringing the speed limit down just made it more reflective, or because with the lower speed the traffic flowed more smoothly and was able to maintain a constant 20mph rather than accelerating and decelerating it cannot be said. From a pollution/emissions POV it's far better to hold the constant speed than keeping accelerating and decelerating constantly

 

[PeterC]

At the minute there are a few roads near me, one in particular near my industrial unit, that have what I call unrealistic speed limits - these are in place because of either several high speed collisions (where people have got KSI doing daft speeds well above the limit) or there have been residents noise complaints. One is a road that's straight and rural and effectively 40-50mph and has been recently reduced to 30. Occasionally get police on there because it's a good place to cop people - we do occaisonally get idiots doing 50-60 on there (in isolation you can do this quite safely) but you could cop people all day long doing 40 because it feels, and has the actual risk factor of a 40 road. As a result practically everyone does.

We get campaigns to reduce speed limits after accidents involving drink or drugs, I never understand the thought processes of people who think that somebody who was so smash out out of their head that they tried to take a 50 limit at 80 will behave differently of you change the number posted on top of the stick.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Better to rebuild and narrow the roads to make illegal speeds impossible

 

[edwin_m]

...the traffic flowed more smoothly and was able to maintain a constant 20mph rather than accelerating and decelerating... From a pollution/emissions POV it's far better to hold the constant speed than keeping accelerating and decelerating constantly

Indeed, noise too. Many of the speed control measures that are put in seem to be designed for a far lower speed than the posted limit on that road, which just encourages braking and accelerating.

We get campaigns to reduce speed limits after accidents involving drink or drugs, I never understand the thought processes of people who think that somebody who was so smash out out of their head that they tried to take a 50 limit at 80 will behave differently of you change the number posted on top of the stick.

For each one of those there are many others who use the speed as a guideline or even a target, so simply posting a lower speed will have some effect.

 

[dakta]

We get campaigns to reduce speed limits after accidents involving drink or drugs, I never understand the thought processes of people who think that somebody who was so smash out out of their head that they tried to take a 50 limit at 80 will behave differently of you change the number posted on top of the stick.

I've always said the people who care will continue to do so, the people that don't will continue to do so.

Regarding noise, the biggest noise polluters are people with large exhausts etc IMHO (based on experience in this area) and a changed limit would struggle to influence that.

Edit: The reason being that these cars tend to be loud in any case, and they tend to be going as fast as they can in any case.

 

[py_megapixel]

I've always said the people who care will continue to do so, the people that don't will continue to do so.

Regarding noise, the biggest noise polluters are people with large exhausts etc IMHO (based on experience in this area) and a changed limit would struggle to influence that.

Personally I think exhaust noise being within reasonable levels should be tested at MOT.

 

[dakta]

They should be, but the problem is it's easy to get around. You can swap the back end of an exhaust just like that, and some even have electronically or pneumatically operated bypass pipes so you can 'select your volume' with a switch in the car.

This is a side of performance tuning I distance myself from because it gets a bit drawn away from seeing what an engine can do into the 'louder is better' side which isn't a focal point of my love for engine tweaking at all. I once did a back to back dyno test bypassing the entire exhaust with a sleeved pipe on a 2.0 diesel and the difference was neglible.

I raise these as I think these will probably draw the most complaints, around here they tend to come out at night and drive in circles endlessly and genuinely can be a nuisance, but it's not speed limit related.

 

[typefish]

I remember the days when they were just grey boxes. Them being conspicuous was a legal thing, I believe. Other countries, whilst not hiding them, don't make them so visible

It's a left over of a gentleman's agreement from the times when police forces could take a proportion of money from a speeding fixed penalty notice

They could be placed inside a tree for all the law cares, and this has been the case since day one

Now hypothecation is no longer a thing, police forces are "forced" to abstract money from speeding awareness courses in a manner that would, if done by criminals, would be described as bribery

* They need to be backed up with an official document that specifies the limit, (which on a few occasions is lost or misapplied) but that is of no consequence to the motorist when deciding whether to ignore the signs.

If the official documents are mislaid or misapplied, then the case is thrown out and if required, any previous speeding tickets refunded and convictions reversed

Personally I think exhaust noise being within reasonable levels should be tested at MOT.

What's a reasonable level? My dad has a car that passed its SVA with an exhaust noise level under load of 99 dBA (which is the max level for the current IVA scheme) therefore you'd need to check it against the vehicle's type approval

Also, this is already a thing - exhausts can't be considerably louder than what was type approved, and is part of the MOT test (well, it should be anyway)

 

[MotCO]

Also, this is already a thing - exhausts can't be considerably louder than what was type approved, and is part of the MOT test (well, it should be anyway)

As should be the font and spacing on number plates, but you can see a wide variety, particularly when they try to spell out a name. (I say try, since the cheapskates try to use close spacing of 11s to look like H, 9s to look like P etc.)

 

[AM9]

... If the official documents are mislaid or misapplied, then the case is thrown out and if required, any previous speeding tickets refunded and convictions reversed ...

I believe that to be so. I remember many years ago (in the '80s when I lived in Hampshire) the A3 from where the M275 ends at Rudmore roundabout to the Church Street roundabout had speed signs erected and the police dutifully processed many speeding convitions. At some point it was discovered that the official change of the speed limit on the road hadn't been formally issued. Once a local lawyer found that out there was a mass refund of fines and removal of licence penalty points. I find it hard to believe that any of the convicted drivers actually knew that the limit wasn't legally enforcable at the time of their exceeding the limits shown on the road signs.

 

[PeterC]

Indeed, noise too. Many of the speed control measures that are put in seem to be designed for a far lower speed than the posted limit on that road, which just encourages braking and accelerating.

For each one of those there are many others who use the speed as a guideline or even a target, so simply posting a lower speed will have some effect.

The effect of bringing the law into disrepute

 

[Peter Mugridge]

As should be the font and spacing on number plates, but you can see a wide variety, particularly when they try to spell out a name. (I say try, since the cheapskates try to use close spacing of 11s to look like H, 9s to look like P etc.)

People who do this generally have two sets of plates - the legal one, which goes on whenever the car is in a garage and the ridiculous one which goes on for the rest of the time.

Same with the exhausts - they just swap a legal one in when the car goes into a garage.

 

[DustyBin]

Better to rebuild and narrow the roads to make illegal speeds impossible

A real vote winner that one!

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

A vote winner and a life saver
'Accidental' deaths can be halved again, and again

Anyone here work in railway safety? How might the rail safety ethos be applied to road danger?

 

[Ianno87]

A real vote winner that one!

Sometimes you do something unpopular because it's the right thing to do.

 

[edwin_m]

The effect of bringing the law into disrepute

I quoted an example above of where roads are dangerous (to pedestrians) because they appear (to drivers) to be safe at a speed well above what is permitted. If the culture is "it doesn't apply to me" then it's a choice of the public spending money making the roads physically slower, or those people can contribute to the public coffers via speed camera fines which might actually deter them from doing it again.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

A small financial penalty, after allowing the crime to be committed, has little effect

 

[Philip]

I don't think 'catching people out' is a road we should go down. Most people go above the speed limit from time to time without it being excessive or dangerous, but still enough to get penalised if caught on camera. What's more we're human so even for people who strictly obey speed limits, it's still easy enough to be distracted by road/traffic issues and occasionally go over. It's important speed cameras are there to help with road safety, not to punish drivers.

 

[cactustwirly]

Personally I think exhaust noise being within reasonable levels should be tested at MOT.

It is, not having a cat or silencer is an MoT fail technically.

 

[ainsworth74]

Can I just make another reminder that we do ask that technical terms be defined please? I think we're on safe ground with MOT but there's some other terms like IVA (which I'm guessing isn't a debt solution in this context) or PCP (which doesn't appear to refer to the type of car lease) which really do need to be defined. Particularly as this isn't a motoring forum so, whilst we do have some people who are car enthusiasts, it's even more important to define terms with a bit more diligence

 

[DustyBin]

A vote winner and a life saver
'Accidental' deaths can be halved again, and again

Anyone here work in railway safety? How might the rail safety ethos be applied to road danger?

Sometimes you do something unpopular because it's the right thing to do.

I think very few people would support spending billions of pounds making our roads narrower, or introducing any other measures to slow traffic down (outside of some built up areas perhaps).

Personally I'd like to see the motorway speed limit increased to say 80mph, maybe more on some stretches. 70mph is painfully slow in most modern cars.

I would however support some kind of driving retest/refresher every few years (between 5 and 10). The standard of driving I see on a daily basis is terrible, non-indicating seems normal these days.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Narrowing roads need not cost much, appropriately parked vehicles have the same effect as expensive traffic-calming works
A value can be put on a life saved though, several million