Are speed cameras too conspicuous?

miami · 4 Mar 2021

Bletchleyite said:
Depending on the circumstances it *could* be prosecuted as driving without due care and attention, but then so can middle lane hogging - if the middle lane wasn't being hogged there would be no need for it.

Rule 264: You should always drive in the left-hand lane when the road ahead is clear

If you're in the left lane, no need to exit the left lane unless the left lane is blocked - indeed you positively shouldn't leave the left lane unless it's not clear

RailUK Forums

ABB125 · 4 Mar 2021

I've created a new thread to avoid derailing this one too much: https://railforums.co.uk/threads/general-roads-discussion.214816/

AM9 · 4 Mar 2021

robbeech said:
It's not about who is right or wrong its about who lives and dies. Well, it is unless there's a tidy penny to be earned by ignoring that concept.

It's all well and good suggesting posted speed limit signs should be enough, but they are not as people ignore them. It matters not one bit what the offense is, whether they'll get caught, what their punishment will be and whether it deters them from doing it again, the fact is, if they're driving too fast, they could kill someone and a speeding fine is rather immaterial at that point. If people are not going to slow down for a sign in plain sight, but they WILL slow down for a camera painted bright yellow and their action of slowing down means Mrs Lidcracker's grandson bobby doesn't get killed when, with her knackered knees she can't push his pram out of the road fast enough then to argue hiding the camera so they kill young bobby AND get a speeding fine doesn't sit particularly well with me. ...

That is all very well, but I didn't say that only speed limit signs are needed. There is an argument that a single blackspot with a speed camera to monitor those who don't reduce their speed to a safe level. In that case, the visibility of the camera doesn't make much difference. What I was talking about is the practice of habitual speeders who rely on the cameras' visibility so that they can ignore the limit except for in the vicinity of the camera. Consequently, on a road where excessive speed has resulted in a high number of KSI incidents, conspicuous cameras are virtually useless.
If the road was clearly marked with its speed limit, and the cameras were either obscured, or bright yellow and located every 100 meters, the most foolish (or arrogant) drivers would soon be removed from the scene when their licences were withdrawn.

antharro · 4 Mar 2021

py_megapixel said:
But do they speed up again as soon as they're out of sight of the camera? I'd wager some do.

Of course, as with almost any speed camera. But, if that speed camera is positioned outside of a school (for example), and it causes them to slow down, even for a short time, then that can only be a good thing. We're never going to stop the most hard core of speeders, but if an obviously placed speed camera can at least slow them down in an area where speed is super important, then that's a win, even be it a small one.

robbeech · 4 Mar 2021

AM9 said:
What I was talking about is the practice of habitual speeders who rely on the cameras' visibility so that they can ignore the limit except for in the vicinity of the camera.

Which is why fixed cameras are rarely much use at all and average speed cameras seem to work better. Of course there are the obvious flaws with those too but they do tend to keep the overall speed down more efficiently. A hybrid camera that takes an instant speed AND an average between two of more would be better.

AM9 said:
If the road was clearly marked with its speed limit, and the cameras were either obscured, or bright yellow and located every 100 meters, the most foolish (or arrogant) drivers would soon be removed from the scene when their licences were withdrawn.

That penalises the road user for using excess speed, which is a positive thing, but if the cameras are hidden, it doesn't solve the immediate problem of the road death. The person could be in the road TODAY, not in 14 days when the letter comes through the door to tell you you were speeding. If the driver is in an unfamiliar area and is using excessive speed (matters not whether they're right or wrong) then a visible camera will slow them down and possibly save lives, an invisible camera will get them a penalty and some points AND a potential death by dangerous driving charge. Encouraging the hiding of the cameras is encouraging higher revenue from drivers at the potential cost of lives.

I'll replace the completely dead smoke alarm battery next time i do an order from the place i get my batteries from. I'm sure the house fire will wait, after all i haven't had a fire in the last 37 years.

AM9 · 5 Mar 2021

robbeech said:
Which is why fixed cameras are rarely much use at all and average speed cameras seem to work better. Of course there are the obvious flaws with those too but they do tend to keep the overall speed down more efficiently. A hybrid camera that takes an instant speed AND an average between two of more would be better.

My response was about point speed cameras as the thread has generally been so far. I agree that a average speed cameras are better but not all roads are suitable for them. I've often thought that combined spot/average speed cameras would be the most effective but I'm not aware of any installations that include them.

robbeech said:
That penalises the road user for using excess speed, which is a positive thing, but if the cameras are hidden, it doesn't solve the immediate problem of the road death. The person could be in the road TODAY, not in 14 days when the letter comes through the door to tell you you were speeding. If the driver is in an unfamiliar area and is using excessive speed (matters not whether they're right or wrong) then a visible camera will slow them down and possibly save lives, an invisible camera will get them a penalty and some points AND a potential death by dangerous driving charge. Encouraging the hiding of the cameras is encouraging higher revenue from drivers at the potential cost of lives.

I'll replace the completely dead smoke alarm battery next time i do an order from the place i get my batteries from. I'm sure the house fire will wait, after all i haven't had a fire in the last 37 years.

The visibility of cameras is precisely why drivers routinely ignore the speed limit. That's why nearly all cameras are preceded with signs that include the speed limit. Clearly it requires a change in attitude for cameras, which is why I suggest one of two solutions, either obscure the cameras ( in appropriate locations, have frequent camera/speed warning signs), or have camera boxes as frequently every 100m or so. Those cameras can be dummy boxes or working but would all look the same and like average speed installations, that could be changed as frequently as necessary. Only the foolhardy types would deliberately ignore them. Most would then learn to drive within the legal limit.
Changing these things would take years to implement, but word would soon get around that the change was coming. The deaths that you speak of would not occur, - instead there would be a general cultural change across the country because the fear of prosecution would force a behavioural change.

py_megapixel · 5 Mar 2021

antharro said:
Of course, as with almost any speed camera. But, if that speed camera is positioned outside of a school (for example), and it causes them to slow down, even for a short time, then that can only be a good thing. We're never going to stop the most hard core of speeders, but if an obviously placed speed camera can at least slow them down in an area where speed is super important, then that's a win, even be it a small one.

Problem is, it's a short term win.

Hiding the cameras is a long term win, because if drivers think that they could pass a camera unknowingly at any moment, they're more likely to pay attention to their speed in general. Or, alternatively, they will be ticketed, which provides revenue which could be spent on more traffic calming, for example.

OldNick · 5 Mar 2021

py_megapixel said:
Problem is, it's a short term win.

Hiding the cameras is a long term win, because if drivers think that they could pass a camera unknowingly at any moment, they're more likely to pay attention to their speed in general. Or, alternatively, they will be ticketed, which provides revenue which could be spent on more traffic calming, for example.

It's a long term win for the kid outside the school!

Bletchleyite · 5 Mar 2021

There's nothing, of course, saying you can't have both covert and overt. Knowing that covert ones exist would cause a general behavioural shift (as smart motorways have; the prevailing speed on those is 70 rather than 80-90, and oddly most complaints are about the safety of all-lane running, not that aspect), but having an overt one on a particularly dangerous corner or junction makes those whose behaviour hasn't changed and who just consider the odd ticket to be a tax on driving slow down there and then and so reduce risk there.

DustyBin · 5 Mar 2021

I’m aware that the title of this paper suggests a level of bias, however that doesn’t alter the facts:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/pdf/camera_smith.pdf

“Mr Garvin explained: "I actually believe in casualty reduction and trying to make the roads safer but, having looked at the accident statistics in this area, we find that if you break down the 1,900 collisions we have each year only three per cent involve cars that are exceeding the speed limit. Just 60 accidents per year involve vehicles exceeding the speed limit.
"You then need to look at causes of these 60 accidents. Speed may be a factor in the background but the actual cause of the accident invariably is drink-driving or drug-driving. Drug-taking is becoming more of a problem. In 40 per cent of fatal road accidents in this area one or more of the people involved have drugs in their system."
Many accidents were caused by fatigue, although one of the most common causes of crashes was the failure of drivers to watch out for oncoming vehicles when turning right. "The cause of accidents is clearly something different than exceeding the speed limit and we ought to be looking at those other factors," Mr Garvin said.” - Chief Constable of Durham, Paul Garvin, reported in The Daily Telegraph, 7th December 2003.

Paul Garvin was a colleague of my uncle, himself a senior police officer who was heavily involved in the introduction of the first speed cameras in the UK. Interestingly, it would appear they both share a similar view based on their significant expertise in this area. Speed cameras have become revenue generators which was never the intention, their purpose was to “protect” accident black spots and free up patrol cars from performing that role. Some people may see nothing wrong with their use as revenue generators, I suspect it depends on their attitude to and understanding of, issues surrounding policing by consent and state surveillance in general.

Personally I think speed cameras should be highly visible and used as originally intended. I also think there should be much more effective enforcement (not necessarily by fixed speed cameras) of speed limits in built up areas. I’d like a review of maximum speed limits in the UK with an increase to 80mph on motorways. 70mph is simply too slow in many cases. I would however (and I’m surprised at myself here!) support some kind of periodic refresher or mini CPC style course for all drivers. It shouldn’t be overly costly or time consuming, but all drivers would need to spend a couple of hours every few (maybe four or five) years demonstrating their competence. I honestly believe that would do far more to increase road safety than fining people for doing 80mph on an empty motorway.

ABB125 · 5 Mar 2021

DustyBin said:
I’m aware that the title of this paper suggests a level of bias, however that doesn’t alter the facts:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/pdf/camera_smith.pdf

Paul Garvin was a colleague of my uncle, himself a senior police officer who was heavily involved in the introduction of the first speed cameras in the UK. Interestingly, it would appear they both share a similar view based on their significant expertise in this area. Speed cameras have become revenue generators which was never the intention, their purpose was to “protect” accident black spots and free up patrol cars from performing that role. Some people may see nothing wrong with their use as revenue generators, I suspect it depends on their attitude to and understanding of, issues surrounding policing by consent and state surveillance in general.

Personally I think speed cameras should be highly visible and used as originally intended. I also think there should be much more effective enforcement (not necessarily by fixed speed cameras) of speed limits in built up areas. I’d like a review of maximum speed limits in the UK with an increase to 80mph on motorways. 70mph is simply too slow in many cases. I would however (and I’m surprised at myself here!) support some kind of periodic refresher or mini CPC style course for all drivers. It shouldn’t be overly costly or time consuming, but all drivers would need to spend a couple of hours every few (maybe four or five) years demonstrating their competence. I honestly believe that would do far more to increase road safety than fining people for doing 80mph on an empty motorway.

Good points.

The prevailing speed limit for motorways on the continent is 120/130 km/h (75-80 mph), so I see no issue with increasing the limit in non-urban areas (so most of the network). The difficulty comes from high-standard non-motorway dual carriageways (which in any other country would be a motorway!) such as the A14: on some of these roads, an increased limit would be fine; on others there could be a good case to actually reduce the limit (I'm told that the A505 between Baldock and Royston is slightly dodgy, for example). Therefore it would be very difficult to have a blanket speed limit change for non-motorway dual carriageways.
I also think that "refresher tests" would be a good idea!

Bletchleyite · 5 Mar 2021

DustyBin said:
Personally I think speed cameras should be highly visible and used as originally intended. I also think there should be much more effective enforcement (not necessarily by fixed speed cameras) of speed limits in built up areas. I’d like a review of maximum speed limits in the UK with an increase to 80mph on motorways. 70mph is simply too slow in many cases.

I could see value in going the European way - 80mph on certain non-urban open stretches of motorway, but only in dry, clear conditions - the "smart motorway" system could set 70 or even 60 as soon as weather deteriorated. Motorways without the "smart" system would remain 70.

With regard to other roads, I think I'd introduce a new class of A-roads which would be 70 ("up-signed" from the default), but all other dual NSL 60, and single NSL 50, obviously with reductions locally as appropriate. The new class of A-roads would be required to have a minimum length of acceleration lanes, a minimum of 2 wide lanes throughout, and an Armco-fitted unbroken central reservation with no right turnings - basically "pseudomotorways" like the A55 (North Wales Coast) and the A5D (diversionary - not the official designation but the local convention) through MK. For all we quite like our high speeds in MK, the roads aren't up to it (necessitating unofficial "alternate rules of the road" such as people driving accepting that they will be cut up at busy times and that it's OK to do that if you give enough warning, as otherwise nobody ever gets out of an estate) and as such it does tend to cause rather a lot of accidents.

Yes, of course MK could drop its limits and I think it will in the end (not least to allow for things like low-speed motorcycles, which can't presently be safely and legally ridden anywhere in MK - not allowed on the Redways, and really dangerous and scary on 70mph NSL roads), but the issue is much wider than MK - going down from 60 to 50 makes a huge difference to how much attention and skill is required to drive on single-carriageway country roads - most notably, dropping to 50 removes the need for almost all overtaking, which is what is the killer.

DustyBin said:
I would however (and I’m surprised at myself here!) support some kind of periodic refresher or mini CPC style course for all drivers. It shouldn’t be overly costly or time consuming, but all drivers would need to spend a couple of hours every few (maybe four or five) years demonstrating their competence. I honestly believe that would do far more to increase road safety than fining people for doing 80mph on an empty motorway.

That's a great idea, but I just couldn't see it working any more than Driver CPC on buses doesn't. People sitting in a course paying no attention doesn't improve the quality of bus drivers, it just adds bureaucracy.

dm1 · 5 Mar 2021

I think speeding needs to be considered more broadly than just speed cameras. In an ideal world, a road should be built in such a way that speeding is uncomfortable or impossible at locations where it is dangerous. On motorways, so-called "forgiving design" makes this difficult, but for situations like outside schools, if speed cameras are your solution, the street design is likely the problem. Using various methods of traffic calming (lane narrowing, traffic Islands, planting trees along the road, raising pedestrian crossings to kerb level) statistically has a much greater impact on reducing speed and increasing safety.

The problem is that speed cameras are cheap and make money, whereas traffic calming costs money and doesn't make it. To overcome this councils need funding and maybe even liability for poorly designed roads (as in NL). In any traffic accident there are three parties involved - the vehicles, pedestrians/other road users, and the infrastructure. The latter is often overlooked.

Bletchleyite · 5 Mar 2021

dm1 said:
I think speeding needs to be considered more broadly than just speed cameras. In an ideal world, a road should be built in such a way that speeding is uncomfortable or impossible at locations where it is dangerous. On motorways, so-called "forgiving design" makes this difficult, but for situations like outside schools, if speed cameras are your solution, the street design is likely the problem. Using various methods of traffic calming (lane narrowing, traffic Islands, planting trees along the road, raising pedestrian crossings to kerb level) statistically has a much greater impact on reducing speed and increasing safety.

The problem is that speed cameras are cheap and make money, whereas traffic calming costs money and doesn't make it. To overcome this councils need funding and maybe even liability for poorly designed roads (as in NL). In any traffic accident there are three parties involved - the vehicles, pedestrians/other road users, and the infrastructure. The latter is often overlooked.

This does tend to be done to fairly good effect in new estates, which have tight bendy roads with strategically placed marked parking bays - on most post-about-2005-ish estates in MK it is impossible to exceed 20mph even if you wanted to - so that's a success. The difficulty is in applying it to existing, straight, wider roads - I'd agree that things like planters and marked parking bays are the way to achieve it. I don't favour humps because they are very uncomfortable to drive over, can cause damage to vehicles even if crossed at an appropriate speed, can cause subsidence on nearby houses and are a bigger problem to public transport than cars because of how far the back seat in a bus is behind the back axle.

Talking of the latter, it's genuinely the case that one thing that pushed me to buy a car sooner when I moved to MK was that riding a bus to/from work for 20 minutes over just about every speed bump in west MK was starting to cause me back problems. I jest not - some of them would throw you 6 inches in the air off the seat even if the driver was being careful.

ainsworth74 · 5 Mar 2021

DustyBin said:
I would however (and I’m surprised at myself here!) support some kind of periodic refresher or mini CPC style course for all drivers. It shouldn’t be overly costly or time consuming, but all drivers would need to spend a couple of hours every few (maybe four or five) years demonstrating their competence.

I have long thought it's crackers that you could pass your test at 17 and then never again have to demonstrate any knowledge or competency for the rest of your driving life (which could easily been more than fifty years).

DustyBin · 5 Mar 2021

Bletchleyite said:
That's a great idea, but I just couldn't see it working any more than Driver CPC on buses doesn't. People sitting in a course paying no attention doesn't improve the quality of bus drivers, it just adds bureaucracy.

The way I envisage it you would need to actually go out in your car with an instructor and be “signed off” in some way. I’m not proposing you take a driving test per say, but there would need to be some kind of scoring matrix. Another possibility would be providing insurance companies with your score, that would focus minds!

ainsworth74 said:
I have long thought it's crackers that you could pass your test at 17 and then never again have to demonstrate any knowledge or competency for the rest of your driving life (which could easily been more than fifty years).

It’s amazing really, given the potential to cause such carnage!

dm1 · 5 Mar 2021

Bletchleyite said:
I don't favour humps because they are very uncomfortable to drive over, can cause damage to vehicles even if crossed at an appropriate speed, can cause subsidence on nearby houses and are a bigger problem to public transport than cars because of how far the back seat in a bus is behind the back axle.

I don't mean small speed bumps or humps - I mean more a situation where at an intersection the entire road surface is raised up, with a small ramp at the entry to each arm. If done well it doesn't really affect comfort, but forces all traffic to slow down. Such constructions are less suitable for roads with bus routes however.

Bletchleyite · 5 Mar 2021

dm1 said:
I don't mean small speed bumps or humps - I mean more a situation where at an intersection the entire road surface is raised up, with a small ramp at the entry to each arm. If done well it doesn't really affect comfort, but forces all traffic to slow down. Such constructions are less suitable for roads with bus routes however.

Yes, there are plenty of these around MK (the term for them is "table junctions") and they cause as much trouble as conventional road humps. In any case, constant braking and acceleration is not ideal; you really want something that allows smooth progress but limits the speed, which the "windy roads with some obstructions" approach does better.

AlterEgo · 5 Mar 2021

Bletchleyite said:
Yes, there are plenty of these around MK (the term for them is "table junctions") and they cause as much trouble as conventional road humps. In any case, constant braking and acceleration is not ideal; you really want something that allows smooth progress but limits the speed, which the "windy roads with some obstructions" approach does better.

Indeed, constant speeding up and slowing down is inefficient and just adds to the emissions of the vehicle passing through. Monkston Park is an estate with windy roads and few, if any, speed bumps. Much better.

Bletchleyite · 5 Mar 2021

AlterEgo said:
Indeed, constant speeding up and slowing down is inefficient and just adds to the emissions of the vehicle passing through. Monkston Park is an estate with windy roads and few, if any, speed bumps. Much better.

Indeed. Table junctions were a feature of the 1990-2000 ish build estates in MK, and they're a nuisance, particularly for bus passengers who get thrown in the air at each one even if driven very slowly (I genuinely jest not). The post-2000 ish estates such as the one you describe (and e.g. Oxley Park, Medbourne etc) tend to use the "windy roads with strategically placed parking" approach and work much better.

robbeech · 5 Mar 2021

OldNick said:
It's a long term win for the kid outside the school!

Which is my main issue with the concept of hiding them.

Yes, if we hide them all, people MAY eventually learn not to take the risk and MAY slow down, but in the meantime we will lose lives where people don’t slow down because they don’t see a camera. So a short (and possibly long) term revenue win and a (not guaranteed but hopeful) long term win on road death reduction. It’s a pretty heavy financial bias. I appreciate everyone is different but I personally put a little more focus on the value of lives.

edwin_m · 5 Mar 2021

So should they be conspicuous when protecting a specific blackspot such as a school, but not when they aren't?

AM9 · 5 Mar 2021

edwin_m said:
So should they be conspicuous when protecting a specific blackspot such as a school, but not when they aren't?

That was my thought as well. Saying that making speed cameras conspicuous saves lives is only relevant where the camera is located at a specific black spot (for pedestrians). There are many roads where the elevated risk is on long stretches of them e.g. where there are likely to be pedestrians, cyclists and minor side roads, so unless there is a conspicuous camera at every one of them, the rogue drivers will just speed through as normal thereby taking whatever KSI toll gets in their way.
What is so unreasonable about expecting drivers to stay below the displayed speed limit, - many manage to do so but there is this hardcore minority that insists that they can't, won't or even shouldn't have to?

DustyBin · 5 Mar 2021

edwin_m said:
So should they be conspicuous when protecting a specific blackspot such as a school, but not when they aren't?

Personally I think they should always be visible so they provide a visible deterrent, not a form of covert surveillance from which revenue is generated. One could question whether they're even required if they aren't protecting a specific location/blackspot, as per my previous post. I suspect however that the loss of revenue would be a problem!

LSWR Cavalier · 5 Mar 2021

Talk about black spots is smokescreening, trying to justify doing less. 'Accidents' happen at all sorts of unlikely and likely places. Might be best to choose safety camera sites at random.

DustyBin · 5 Mar 2021

LSWR Cavalier said:
Talk about black spots is smokescreening, trying to justify doing less. 'Accidents' happen at all sorts of unlikely and likely places. Might be best to choose safety camera sites at random.

That's what they do with mobile speed cameras, although they obviously focus on known speeding locations. See my previous post #310 as there's a danger here that we focus too much on speeding when there are wider issues to address in regard to road safety. I think an overhaul of the entire "system" is long overdue....

Bletchleyite · 5 Mar 2021

LSWR Cavalier said:
Talk about black spots is smokescreening, trying to justify doing less. 'Accidents' happen at all sorts of unlikely and likely places. Might be best to choose safety camera sites at random.

No, it's not. Statistics are collected for accidents, and you can genuinely identify places where there is a particular problem along with the likely causes. Often speed isn't a factor, but when it is an overt (yellow) camera is a good way to deal with the problem. No reason you couldn't have both to try to influence behaviour, of course.

antharro · 6 Mar 2021

py_megapixel said:
Problem is, it's a short term win.

Hiding the cameras is a long term win, because if drivers think that they could pass a camera unknowingly at any moment, they're more likely to pay attention to their speed in general. Or, alternatively, they will be ticketed, which provides revenue which could be spent on more traffic calming, for example.

Agree and disagree. Yes, it's a short term win, but that short term win can be the difference between someone ending up in hospital with a serious life changing injury and ending up being treated in an ambulance with bumps and bruises.

The longer term win will need a much broader approach than hidden speed cameras, although I don't disagree that they could be part of that approach.

DustyBin said:
Paul Garvin was a colleague of my uncle, himself a senior police officer who was heavily involved in the introduction of the first speed cameras in the UK. Interestingly, it would appear they both share a similar view based on their significant expertise in this area. Speed cameras have become revenue generators which was never the intention, their purpose was to “protect” accident black spots and free up patrol cars from performing that role. Some people may see nothing wrong with their use as revenue generators, I suspect it depends on their attitude to and understanding of, issues surrounding policing by consent and state surveillance in general.

Personally I think speed cameras should be highly visible and used as originally intended. I also think there should be much more effective enforcement (not necessarily by fixed speed cameras) of speed limits in built up areas. I’d like a review of maximum speed limits in the UK with an increase to 80mph on motorways. 70mph is simply too slow in many cases. I would however (and I’m surprised at myself here!) support some kind of periodic refresher or mini CPC style course for all drivers. It shouldn’t be overly costly or time consuming, but all drivers would need to spend a couple of hours every few (maybe four or five) years demonstrating their competence. I honestly believe that would do far more to increase road safety than fining people for doing 80mph on an empty motorway.

Completely agree with this 100% on all points.

py_megapixel · 6 Mar 2021

antharro said:
Agree and disagree. Yes, it's a short term win, but that short term win can be the difference between someone ending up in hospital with a serious life changing injury and ending up being treated in an ambulance with bumps and bruises.

So surely what we need to be doing is encouraging people to maintain a sensible speed at all times, rather than taking the half-a***d approach of only protecting certain areas.

There are horrific car accidents - many of which are likely to have speeding as a cause - in many places, not just schools, so I personally consider the blanket deterrent provided by lots of hidden cameras at unknown locations to be worth more than the localised protection provided by visible cameras.

That said, I don't see any reason why there couldn't be both. Visible cameras at blackspots to provide deterrent; hidden cameras at undisclosed locations for the purpose of actual enforcement of the limits. Personally, I would be in favour of putting a hidden camera a short distance ahead of a "dummy" visible one, so that people who slow down for the camera are still caught, but still providing the localised protection benefit.

DustyBin said:
I’d like a review of maximum speed limits in the UK with an increase to 80mph on motorways. 70mph is simply too slow in many cases.

Define "too slow"?
There is really no need to make motorways any faster. Many cars are significantly less fuel efficient travelling at motorway speeds as it is; we don't want to make that any worse.
Then you have to consider the safety implications, as well as the increase in noise and pollution levels around motorways, which will be horrible for everyone living nearby (I'm not sure exactly how far you could hear a busy 80mph motorway from, but I imagine it's a mile or more, given that I live about a mile from 50mph dual carriageway and can clearly hear it at all times during the day)

However, I'd like to see a review as well, in particular bringing 30mph limits in built-up areas down to 20 or 10, and possibly raising 30 limits on wider roads with less pedestrian traffic to 40.

DustyBin said:
I would however (and I’m surprised at myself here!) support some kind of periodic refresher or mini CPC style course for all drivers. It shouldn’t be overly costly or time consuming, but all drivers would need to spend a couple of hours every few (maybe four or five) years demonstrating their competence. I honestly believe that would do far more to increase road safety than fining people for doing 80mph on an empty motorway.

You're probably right, but I don't think people should not be fined for speeding just because it was safe in that specific circumstance. There needs to be the blanket understanding that speeding is unacceptable in all circumstances, because yes, one day it might be entirely safe, but the next day it could cause life-threatening injury to a pedestrian or someone in another car.

miami · 6 Mar 2021

py_megapixel said:
There are horrific car accidents - many of which are likely to have speeding as a cause

We don't have to use meaningless works like "many" and "likely", we have actual data

Exceeding the speed limit caused 15% of 1,421 fatal accidents in 2019, 7% of 21,700 serious accidents, and 5% of 55,674 slight accidents (ras50001)

Driver/Rider failed to look properly was 25% of fatals, Driver/Rider failed to judge other person`s path or speed 13%, Driver Loss of control 23%, Driver/Rider careless, reckless or in a hurry 19%.

We need better driver behaviour, not this fixation on speed.

Are speed cameras too conspicuous?

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member