Drive the M4?

[rajagra]

Can I just ask the anti speed camera people what, exactly, they would like the law changed to?

Anti-speed camera doesn't imply anti-law.
We just want the law to be used in a fair way that actually promotes traffic safety.
We want people to be punished for driving dangerously, not for exceeding an arbitrarily chosen number that never changes in response to changing road conditions.
What would I like? How about police in unmarked cars filming genuinely dangerous driving, then nicking the drivers and prosecuting them?
It wouldn't be difficult. Most of us see at least one example of dangerous driving each day without looking for it.
For Christ's sake, people frequently pull out from side roads in front of emergency vehicles that have lights flashing and sirens wailing!!! If it's that easy to find dangerous drivers, why don't the police put more effort into doing just that, making the roads safer?
We all know why. Prosecutions are time-consuming and expensive. But speed cameras use virtually no manpower and make money. It's so much easier to have a turn-key, automated system, backed up by laws that focus on abstract technicalities rather than a genuine determination of whether somebody's driving is good or bad.
The police are required to enforce traffic law to keep the roads safe. But because so many people believe that speed cameras enforce traffic law to keep the roads safe, the police put them up and cut down on the alternative, more direct methods of identifying bad drivers. And IMO that is shameful and dangerous.

[JK Ferret]

OK, IMHO, I think that a speed camera's aim is to make as much capital for the government as possible.

HOWEVER, speed cameras may serve some useful purpose occasionally.

Cameras in public areas (eg schools)? Fine.

Cameras on urban A roads? Fine, even if they do slowdrivers down just for a while, it's still safer, correct?

But cameras on motorways? Definite no. Why cameras in a zone that has less accidents along itthan anywhere else? no point. if any sort of traffic control comes onto the motorways let it be to take all the chavs and boy racers that cause accidents by dangerous driving off of it.

With money going into projects like this, no wonder public services like the police, NHS and education are suffering.

[iranu]

One big problem i've gathered from this post is that we dont have any conclusive evidence to say that speeding increases/decreases the risk of accidents.

Increasing speed reduces the time that a human being has to react to the hazard. However, it depends so much more on the driver. If you allow a time/space relative to the vehicle infront then you will have much more time to react, whether it's 70mph or 20mph. There are more hazards on a 1/2 mile town road than 20 miles of motorway and more accidents take place at low speed on non motorway roads. Motorways with their high speeds are the safest roads in the country.

What we do have is common sense - if you hit somebody at 90mph its going to do more damage than if you hit them at 70mph. (assuming the same conditions for this comparison before anyone goes on about angles etc)

you cannot argue with that, thats just pure physics.

Very few people are hit at 90 or indeed 70mph. The outcome would be the same...death. so arguing that is out of context, we are talking Motorways.

To answer peoples point about '70mph being the limit cos thats what cars used to max out at' thats easy - those cars are still about today. Many old cars are still about that struggle at 70mph, let along higher. Also many NEW cars still have 1 litre engines that struggle to maintain high speeds. So raising the speed limit would increase the dangers immensely - a mixture of speeds on a motorway would be insanely stupid.

I had an E reg 997cc ford fiesta that would do a ton, 100mph slightly downhill.

We also have a mixture of speeds on the motorway it's only the degree of (speed) difference that makes danger.

I would agree in principle that say 120mph as a limit, is dangerous, as you come up upon traffic far too quickly to judge distances let alone inturpret signals etc. Trust me I once did 137mph (for not very long) on the A1M in a company car trying to beat a record from Portsmouth to Stevenage. VERY SILLY YES. DO NOT DO THIS I WAS NOT SENSIBLE AND IT SCARED ME. My own preference would be a speed limit of 80mph rigourously enforced with a 10% error of margin.

Variable speed limits - a good idea aslong as plenty of warning of speed changes are given and its sensible...

I agree. Especially in bad weather or high traffic densities. The M25 SW stretch is variable. I've seen many a "nutter" keep at 90 in fog on the M4 when I've scaled back to 55 and less. (some may class me a nutter, PM me and I'll divulge my driving history)

No-one is saying that speed cameras will stop tailgaters etc, so once again i dont think that its relavent to this discussion

It is certainly relevant. Most accidents on motorways are caused by drivers not giving adequate space to the vehicle in front. Lots of rear end shunts are caused by this, certainly when a lane " concertinas" . No matter what speed, if you don't keep your distance then you have less time to react and less space to slow down.

Cameras are being developed (and are in trial) to measure the distance between vehicles.

As for the M4 having speed cameras, they've had it for ages around the Bristol junctions, at one time they were even daft enough to paint those white lines on the tarmac and all drivers who stumbled upon them braked hard, invariably nearly causing pile-ups.

I've seen this happen!! Between Bath J18 and Pucklechurch (theres a bridge no junction) there is a very large dip in the M4, you go down quickly (east to west), as you reach the brow of the hill there is a bridge. There is also a large layby, after the bow and bridge, which the police frequently use. Now the most dangerous point is as you approach teh brow of the hill - traffic could be stationary the other side yet you have little idea as to the state of traffic, yet this is where the police put there cameras/squad cars. As soon as people breach the brow they see the police car and instictively put on the brakes causining a concertina effect which catches people as the approach teh most dangerous part of the hill; the brow.

A much more sensible solution to SAFETY NOT REVENUE would be to place the squad car before the brow of teh hill.

There was also recently (last 6 months) someone in Bristol taking court action to improperly sited speed cameras around Patchway.

For the record I am not anti-speed camera - I just beleive they should be used for safety not revenue.

I would also like to add that you should (as a matter of duty) disrespect and not abide by a law that is not consented by the populace. i.e Poll Tax, Aparthied etc.

[Knoxville]

.

A system like this is already in place. In normal conditions you can go at 70, when the weather gets worse, slower limits will often be imposed (usually big flashing signs on the motorway )

Theres no signs allowing drivers to use extra speed in good coditions though are there?

Because a Series 5 in a crash at 155mph is sure as hell going to raise the risks of a fatality occurring. Its only ‘safe’ travelling at 155mph provided its not in an accident.

Just Like its only safe travelling at 70mph aslong as its not in an accident, the fact is that not only are cars safer in collisions than they were when the NSL was imposed but the are also more stable at higher speeds and have many safety features (ABS, Traction Control, Smart Cruise Control etc.etc.) they'd never of dreamed of back in the 60's when the A/C Cobra made the govt. Knee jerk their way into a speed limit on motorways

Exactly. Accidents happen, your not going to stop that, irrelevant of the speed limit. But providing a speed limit that is a good compromise between safety and commuting is a must. I don’t know who calculates this to be 70mph, but if this is the set number, it should be adhered to, no matter if we agree with it or not.
Sure, im not denying it would be nice to go down the motorway at 90mph for example, but what if this doubled the average fatality rate? What if it tripled it? Where do you draw the line?

This hasn't (to my knowledge at least) been tested properly though and if it has the results have not been widely released into the public domain.

Your ‘free will’ is limited by the law, like everyone else’s. Sure, you can break it, like everyone else can, but like the crazy French guy out of the Matrix says, ‘cause and effect’. You break the law and get caught, and you’re going to get nailed for it.

Many of our laws and legal practices are imo outdated and hardly in line with the rest of the countries in the european union, a union I may not agree with but one we are part of none the less.

[silent ben]

I have some questions for the 2 groups here. First is for the anti-camera people:

Are you members of any anti-camera group? and if not, why not? surely if you feel this strongly that camera and the motorway speed limit is unjust then why dont you help to get it changed?

And for the pro-camera people:

Would you fight any legislation increasing the speed limits? If you are worried about deaths and accidents at higher speeds then shouldn't you be doing something about it? Why aren't you doing something now and trying to get speeds lowered?

Also, lets go back to that graph shown earlier:



Yes, it does ignore some factors, but you must excuse my pessismism at believing road surfaces and such like will allow a doubling of the speed limit without increased accidents. The only way the graph doesn't show an increasing death rate as speed limits increase can surely only be put because driving faster doesn't mean its more dangerous.

Get my statistics to prove otherwise, and i'll move to the pro-camera camp, but as it stands the only stats brought into this debate are aiding the anti-cameras.

[Allen]

Most people poodle along at ~80MPH, hardly a difference really from 70/75, but it seems to be an average. 71MPH is certainly going to make almost no difference in an accident situation, but it's still speeding, illegal and will get you a fine. I would also argue this for residential areas but it has more of an effect there.

Why should the government increase the speed limit to 80 just because lots of people do it? If they increase the speed limit, then people will just "poodle" along at 90, what happens then? Increase the speed limit to 90, just because people are doing it?

At the end of the day, it's the law. Break it and get caught, you'll be punished. If you don't speed you have nothing to worry about.

Most motorway accidents are caused by pillocks driving far too close to people infront, swerving into another lane without looking properly, and soemtimes driving too slow causing everyone to have to veer round them, are they not?

By slow, I take it you mean sticking to the legal limits? The only people who drive up people's backsides on motorways are those who wish to speed past but can't, therefore drive threateningly close to get the other driver to move out of the way. As for swerving into other lanes, well, I hardly see that, but if it happens then surely if you are sticking to the speed limit you'll have enough time to react to these situations, no?

Silly speeds like 150MPH, perhaps. That's speeding, and that's ridiculous.
75/80MPh is also speeding. It's also illegal.

Variable speed limits are an excellent idea, and they already exist With the overhead gantries. Perhaps they should be made to have more of a scope.

As someone else said, we have variable speed limits for dangerous conditions, but there's really no need to speed above 70, maybe 75 to forgive minor lapses of concentration.

Allen, are you telling me you NEVER drive even slightly over 40 in a 40 zone? Same for a 50, NSL, and 70 on a motorway? Ever?

Slightly over is not the problem here though, we're not talking about hammering it down the motorway at 72mph! There should be no, or very little tolerance in 30 zones and a 10% tolerance in zones after that IMO. Anything outside that 10% buffer should receive punishment, no matter how "safe" the driver thinks it is.

I have a question, lots of people on here are arguing against speed cameras, against low national speed limits and some even own up to, and boast about, speeding. Can you answer me this please:

Do you think you are a safe driver when you are breaking the speed limits?

[Knoxville]

You do know that car speedo's can be out by up to 20% depending on the speed the vehicle is travelling at the time and on its age.....

[Allen]

You do know that car speedo's can be out by up to 20% depending on the speed the vehicle is travelling at the time and on its age.....

Drivers who use that excuse are either incompetent or just couldn't give a toss and will use that excuse to speed...

[Knoxville]

Right so if you get in your car now and drive down a road doing what your speedo says is 30mph and you get pulled by a copper and fined then your incompetent and you don't give a toss?

[Allen]

Why do you have to drive at the speed limit? Drive at a sensible speed within the limit then you won't have any problems. I would think everyone should know if their car has a defective speedo or not.

[Howard]

Why should the government increase the speed limit to 80 just because lots of people do it? If they increase the speed limit, then people will just "poodle" along at 90, what happens then? Increase the speed limit to 90, just because people are doing it?

That's not what I meant. You said ANY sort of speeding was dangerous. I'm saying otherwise.

At the end of the day, it's the law. Break it and get caught, you'll be punished. If you don't speed you have nothing to worry about.


By slow, I take it you mean sticking to the legal limits? The only people who drive up people's backsides on motorways are those who wish to speed past but can't, therefore drive threateningly close to get the other driver to move out of the way. As for swerving into other lanes, well, I hardly see that, but if it happens then surely if you are sticking to the speed limit you'll have enough time to react to these situations, no?

By slow I mean going slower than the legal limits, thus irritating other drivers and possibly causing an accident. It happens on any road you drive on.


As someone else said, we have variable speed limits for dangerous conditions, but there's really no need to speed above 70, maybe 75 to forgive minor lapses of concentration.


Slightly over is not the problem here though, we're not talking about hammering it down the motorway at 72mph! There should be no, or very little tolerance in 30 zones and a 10% tolerance in zones after that IMO. Anything outside that 10% buffer should receive punishment, no matter how "safe" the driver thinks it is.

I have a question, lots of people on here are arguing against speed cameras, against low national speed limits and some even own up to, and boast about, speeding. Can you answer me this please:

Do you think you are a safe driver when you are breaking the speed limits?

My answers are in bold.

[Knoxville]

Why do you have to drive at the speed limit? Drive at a sensible speed within the limit then you won't have any problems. I would think everyone should know if their car has a defective speedo or not.

And how do you work that out exactly? Short of fitting a gps powered speedo to your car there is no real way of knowing.

What if tommorow the government announced later today they were raising the speed limit to 80mph, would you be happy with it being 80mph because the government have raised it or would you still go on with this mormonist campaign to send us back to horse and cart speeds?

If your not going to accept other peoples opinions as possibly, perhaps. maybe, once in a blue moon being valid then there's no point you even getting involved in discussions like this man.

No offence but I find the way you call anyone who's ever broken the speed limit by accident or otherwise a ****** to be not only offensive but also hypocritical, at some point during your life be it from a lapse from your usual superman like levels of concentration or because of inaccurate speedo read-out's or maybe you just went 1mph over during a gear you have broken the speed limit, no if's, but's or maybe's, you simply will have. I've never met you, never been in a car with you and tbh don't know you but the law of averages says you have because you are human just like everybody else on the road.

I don't like people that fly round my housing estate in 2litre nova's at 40mph, nor do I like the Mercedes driver who tore past my dad the other day at what must have been close to 70mph down a 40mph limit stretch of road not so far away from a school. You however do not seem to be singling out these people, the truly dangerous people on roads today, your picking on people simply for being human and making a mistake or loosing concentration for a split second meaning that they end up doing 32 in a 30 and getting nabbed by the gatso which if anything makes certain roads more dangerous.

[DaBeeeenster]

Very few people are hit at 90 or indeed 70mph. The outcome would be the same...death. so arguing that is out of context, we are talking Motorways.

Sorry, but this is just stupid. You dont really believe that, do you? It is demonstrably wrong.

[DaBeeeenster]

Knoxxy can you please answer my question. What, exactly, do you want the law changed to?

We already have variable limits on the road, with an upper limit known as the speed limit. You have to control your speed based on the conditions at the time. What is so difficult to understand?

[DaBeeeenster]

I don't like people that fly round my housing estate in 2litre nova's at 40mph, nor do I like the Mercedes driver who tore past my dad the other day at what must have been close to 70mph down a 40mph limit stretch of road not so far away from a school. You however do not seem to be singling out these people, the truly dangerous people on roads today, your picking on people simply for being human and making a mistake or loosing concentration for a split second meaning that they end up doing 32 in a 30 and getting nabbed by the gatso which if anything makes certain roads more dangerous.

I think we want to "single out" people that speed. It's quite simple really. Anyone doing > 30 mph over the limit should be caught and banned. It's quite simple.

[Allen]

By slow I mean going slower than the legal limits, thus irritating other drivers and possibly causing an accident. It happens on any road you drive on.

So you're saying by sticking to the legal limits irritates you and other drivers and you have more chance of having an accident below 70 rather than above 70? Hmm, ok.

And how do you work that out exactly? Short of fitting a gps powered speedo to your car there is no real way of knowing.

I wouldn't know too much about that, as I wasn't even aware that speedo's where 20% out tbh. If it was the case, speedo's would be changed, would they not?

What if tommorow the government announced later today they were raising the speed limit to 80mph, would you be happy with it being 80mph because the government have raised it or would you still go on with this mormonist campaign to send us back to horse and cart speeds?

No I certainly wouldn't be happy, coz it would mean that speeding drivers had their way, then we'd be in a situation of people driving at 90 coz it's just a little over the speed limit. Where would that end?

If your not going to accept other peoples opinions as possibly, perhaps. maybe, once in a blue moon being valid then there's no point you even getting involved in discussions like this man.

People don't accept my opinions, why should I accept theirs? Driving even 10mph over the speed limit in any speed zone is unlawful and in certain areas very dangerous, so no, I won't accept that it's OK to do it.

No offence but I find the way you call anyone who's ever broken the speed limit by accident or otherwise a ****** to be not only offensive but also hypocritical, at some point during your life be it from a lapse from your usual superman like levels of concentration or because of inaccurate speedo read-out's or maybe you just went 1mph over during a gear you have broken the speed limit, no if's, but's or maybe's, you simply will have. I've never met you, never been in a car with you and tbh don't know you but the law of averages says you have because you are human just like everybody else on the road.

I certainly don't mean to offend every driver in England, but some, no, MOST I see are complete idiots. That's for a whole load of reasons though, not just speeding. I certainly wouldn't call anyone who goes a couple of mph over the speed limit a ******* (whatever that is), coz as you say I probably have, but if they constantly drive at 35 in a 30 zone then they are.

I don't like people that fly round my housing estate in 2litre nova's at 40mph, nor do I like the Mercedes driver who tore past my dad the other day at what must have been close to 70mph down a 40mph limit stretch of road not so far away from a school. You however do not seem to be singling out these people, the truly dangerous people on roads today, your picking on people simply for being human and making a mistake or loosing concentration for a split second meaning that they end up doing 32 in a 30 and getting nabbed by the gatso which if anything makes certain roads more dangerous.

I'm not picking on anyone. I just don't understand how some people will simply refute the fact that speeding is dangerous, hence why we have speed limits. The only reason the speed limit on motorways is 70 is probably because you should only have vehicles on them. In towns it is more likely to have pedestrians, stray animals, bicycles and the like in roads, therefore you have to drive slower to be careful of them. After all, you are in the machine that can kill, not them. On motorways though, there's less chance you're going to get a kid running from behind a parked car into the middle of your lane. Still, I know I'd rather be involved in an accident on the motorway (and let's face it, they are inevitable these days) whilst travelling at 70 rather than 80 or 90, I'd rather increase the chance of being able to walk away, rather than being carted away in an ambulance. I'm not saying I will walk away, but driving at a more sensible speed will increase the chances of that.