i'm not sure if it's mentioned before, but what is truely wrong with traffic enforcement like in the OT, is the fact that the control is taken away from the driver. We all want to be treated as concious, free, accountable members of society. One problem is that more often then not, we are not held accountable for breaking the rules. I can hardly think of a handfull of people that never speed, if only by a bit. We start to think that it's ok to go over the limit, and feel unlucky or angry when we finally are held accountable. That's why we all feel to some degree that speedcameras are unjustified. It gets even worse in the first week after you have been fined: you keep to the limit, and see everyone passing you without getting punished for it, while you were punished for exactly the same behaviour. You quickly adopt your previous speeding pattern again, and get even more mad when you are caught again. I fully and totally applaud the idea of 100% controls through a measurement of average speed. The only feeling of unjustice that needs to be overcome is the sudden punishment for things that were ok a week earlier. This may all sound a bit too easily said, and i'm sure proper shrinks like Nexxo can explain better, but it's still the main reason why speeding tickets are seen as unjustified most of the time. Alongside with that, and a totally different discussion is the usefullness of certain speed limits. Having driven in 7 different countries i can say that stupid and randomly chosen limits are a global issue, and one that provokes a lot of irritation.
I always thought "oh, but speedometers are only accurate to +/-10%" was a bit of a non argument. If you are not confident of your speedometer's accuracy then drive at 10% or so under the speed limit. Or, on the other hand, the police except that registered speed can deviate by +/-10%, then make the speed limit (for example) 44mph but make it clear that the recomended "safe" limit is 40. I agree that it would be hard to implement any widespread changes to speed limits and the likelihood of getting caught. However, I still think that getting people to see speed limits as (sensible, reasonable) LIMITS and not suggestions would make roads safer. Having every one going 35-40 in a 40mph limit seems more sensible (and safer) than some most people going 40 in a 30 and some people going 50.
My speedo regularly reads 10% faster than the GPS or the roadside speed sign thingies indicate - so if I'm driving at 30mph according to the speedo, the GPS says I'm actually going at 27-ish mph. AFAIK, most speedos read over, not under - but the MOT spec says that it's OK to have +/- 10%, so the police allow for this when they set speed cameras (the camera is set to 10%+2mph according to ACPO guidelines - so anyone who says they were caught at 31mph in a 30 zone is lying about what speed they were really doing ). As others have said, though, speed cameras just force people to watch their speedo rather than the road ahead. The real problem, though, is that accidents aren't caused by people speeding. They're caused by people driving stupidly (tailgating, constant lane switching, exiting late, etc.) - and no camera can distinguish when people are driving sensibly or not.
Ooooo, this is a terrible idea. It's been annoying me since i first heard about it. Speed isn't the killer, it's bad drivers.
I wish they'd do more of those Think! ads, and improve them. That's the kind of stuff that will fix it, if anything. Most of the terrible drivers I know are terrible and dangerous because they have no idea how dangerous their driving is, or what the consequences would be if they crashed. They really don't think it's a problem. It makes me want to troll their faces right into rotten.com, just to show them what really happens. Although the last Think! ad featured images of a man's broken ribcage puncturing his lungs in slow motion hip I don't think it did much educating. They'd do well to focus more on educating people about the most common ways accidents happen. People aren't consistent or vigilant enough in their driving; they think it's alright to drive safely almost all the time, and then occasionally map-read on the steering-wheel while driving, or hold an animated conversation with 3 other people. Like there's some kind of Road Karma that will stop accidents happening to you if you're a good driver most of the time.
there was a stretch of road near where i use to live, and they errected average speed camera's dont know if anyone else has seen them, you pass one camera and it logs your speed over a set distance to the next camera, basically stopping people roaring off after passing the first camera. Now local police have said accidents have gone up on that stretch, but these have all been shunts, so they're not recorded in offical figures as no lives are lost. Everyone is watching the speedo trying to keep a solid 50mph.
...on some roads its almost impossible to go at the max legal speed without going to sleep or killing yourself from boredom...
the problem is though, you can't simply increase the speed limits there, because if the speed difference between the various vehicles gets too big the risk of accidents increases.
I agree - It would never work, even if it were a "You will do this" thing. A coupleof you mention mandatory check-tests/retests ever 10-15 years. I'm given to understand that were this to be done, which is unlikely, it would be at the drivers cost. Simply because, as stated, they couldn't afford to do it 'free'. However, it is unlikely, as the current system is fighting an ever growing backlog. Infact, the only place around me that has 'regular' or even remotely predictable test slots is Kingstanding - Anyone who's driven there will tell you that it's not a nice place to take a test (Are you anywhere near there, Nexxo?). Lichfield can be upwards of a 6month wait for a practical test, Cannok is not much better. Also, do any of you think that would honestly have a beneficial effect on Mr. Businessman sailing down the M42 every other day, late for meetings? No. Except that, without enough prior 'revision', he would be without a job every ten years. Bad habits develop very quickly in a car, because there are so many easy shortcuts. I bet that every single one of you who drive, or have been for more than six months after passing, have more than one bad habit that would cause you to fail a test now. I know I have, and I don't drive regularly (no car). As for calls to make the testing system better, I disagree in a way. The practical tests are not easy to pass, depending (heavily) on examiner. The ones around here are absolute *******s when it comes to passing people. The majority of males who take their first test here in sunny Lichfield are failed first time - It's not just one or two instructors either, it's pretty much every local instructor (And some irregular not-so-local instructors). This is not just my friends, either. The theory tests, however, are an absolute joke. I got 100% on the questions, and only missed one hazard on hazard perception. I've never even seen a highway code. I didn't practice for the test at all. My mother was less than happy about this (I only told her I hadn't seen a highway code after the test), as any driving instructor would be. I can't say how to improve the theory, because I simply don't know, but it is in dire need of an overhaul. Agreed - With some adaptation, the same system as the motorcycle system would be a step in the right direction. Of course there are ways around it, but hey. What doesn't have ways around it?
The problem for me with a lot of people here and in generals arguement is thus: A lot of the counter arguements to speed cameras and speed limiting technology might be justified if most people were driving safely. The reality is they arent. If you go onto any UK motorway you will see that most people are driving at about 80 with extremely short distances between cars. Why cars are designed to (and are permitted for sale) be able to exceed even 90mph escapes me. Its uneccesary and illegal. Its just a mode of transport to get from a to b! If you bring in an average speed cameras for all motorways at say 75mph I fail to see the fundamental flaw. The arguement that people would stare at the speedo is missing the point, if people were better educated and just slowed down and did 65-70 they wouldnt need to. At the end of the day you dont need to look at your speedo to tell the difference between 60 and 75, you do however need to constantly check your speed if you are intent on driving within 1% of the limit. In my view as someone who has lost a friend and a family member through speeding that I dont personally feel that the status quo with car transport should be something we keep long term. I would welcome computer controlled cars once the technology is ready. By that I mean the whole hog, cars driven entirely without human input. Basically motorised pods. It may not be romantic or much fun but in my view... It is unfortunate but the amount of people killed or seriously injured on our roads suggests to me that people are not responsible or skilled enough to drive vehicles as and how they please. I know a lot of people would disagree, but isnt taking some of peoples ''rights'' away worth it to save so many lives? We are talking a LOT of lives here! Dean.
You're kinda obliged to drive around the speed limit - if you do 60 in a 70 zone, you'll hold everyone up. It sounds trivial, but traffic flow is important. People will always press up as close as they can to the limit, it's natural. Even if it's not ideal - you'll never get everyone to do otherwise. Speed cameras do distract you. You stop worrying about staying alive and avoiding accidents and focus instead on not breaking the speed limit. In this way, speed cameras kinda miss the point - they tackle the problem inefficiently, on a tiny area of the overall road system, and fail to address the real issue - the attitudes and awareness of drivers. If you wanna combat speeding you need to go back a step, to educating people more thoroughly on road safety and the causes of accidents. Stringent, hardass measures like self-limiting cars and cameras aren't going to help overall.
Speed limiting is VERY bad thing ;-) I got a ticket this month for going 86 km/h in a 60 km/h zone, because in Ukraine speed zones are made for making money not for safety , even if it like an city-motorway the speed limit is steel 60 km/h, but you can safely go 100-120km/h. I think nowdays cars are handling/braking a lot better then 20-30 years before , then why use old-cr*p speed limits? Statistics shows that speeding isn't the main danger factor. And i think people should have different driver licenses , because some people have a really good reaction time and some are slowpoke4life with reaction time about 1-2 seconds , fore those even 40 km/h are over the danger limit. I think people who like to drive fast(but safe) need a different drivers tests, special practice and reaction tested - to have a special license.
Have you taken the test recently? It's stupidly anal retentive, and guess what, as soon as an idiot passes his test, he'll drive like an idiot. You can't make people safe drivers through the test system if they want to act like twats. The only way to stop people driving like twats is to take the ones that do off the road.
You think test in UK are stupid? In Ukraine i think they are 10 000 times more stupid. In our test there are questions like : what is the pressure in main brake cylinder of KAMAZ truck? WTF i drive an new MMC Lancer Answer: 0,5 kg/cm2 ))) and how they teach this so couple of people can remember it - its similar to a size of bottle of vodka 0,5 L And there are more stupid questions like tracktors/horses....what is the maximum weight of a motorbike - 400 KG , its like it's made from depleted uranium
I think the speed limits are fine when you consider the lowest common denominator, namely a young, inexperienced person driving at night in the rain in a battered old hatchback that's just about to run out of mot. In that situation I'd say that 70mph is too fast if anything
Damn and there's me thinking the lowest common denominator drove a BMW Anyway back on topic Someone pointed out that GPS speedo's are accurate, this is true, if they can see a GPS signal. Having been in the business of installing GPS devices, amongst other things, into cars for the last 5 years or so I can tell you that GPS has its shortcomings. With a GPS reliant speedo if you go through a tunnel your speedo stops working due to no signal, in areas like London with lots of tall buildings your speedo would work intermittently due to the rather patchy GPS signal caused by your car moving between "shadows" created by tall buildings. Most GPS chipsets rely on an uninterrupted view of the sky, interrupt that view and you're in a "shadow", some of the more expensive chipsets can see the signal through the roof of a building or even a metal body panel, tracker systems use these. High end sat-nav/media units, both OEM and after-market, also take a speed pulse from the ECU or gearbox to enable dead reckoning calculation. Some of the Pioneer units even use a gyro to ensure accuracy. And let's not forget that the current GPS satellite network is under the control of the US Gov't, they can dial down the accuracy, which would make GPS reliant stuff give false readings.
All cars have built-in 'old fashioned' (i.e. working) speedos anyway, so the GPS ones are purely accessories. A lot of people think along these lines, but it's a huge (and dangerous) misconception. Reaction times have almost nothing to do with a situation's danger on the road in the vast majority of cases. It's lapses in concentration, or sheer bad luck, that result in accidents, not poor reaction times. Your reaction times won't stop a lorry driver cutting across you at a junction from killing you - but an 'old' speed limit will It often feels like, on a bedrock of experience and skill, we're safe in our vehicles. But in the end, it'll probably be some other idiot driver not paying attention that will get you killed. Your aptitude can only keep you safe for so long.
They're gonna need to give people some kind of incentive to doing it though other than the lack of having to worry that you're over the speed limit, something like having to pay less/no road tax or free 3rd party insurance or something like that.
