Are speed cameras too conspicuous?

[ABB125]

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.

And of that 15%, how much was entirely due to speed, and how much was speed a contributory factor but not the main cause?

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Maximum speed limits are obviously too high, if lots of 'accidents' occur when vehicles are doing legal speeds. Plenty of those in 'accidents' might have been under the maximum but were going too fast, doing 5 mph instead of waiting at a junction, reversing without looking, following too close etc.

Quite possibly other experts disagree with the 15% quoted above.

 

[AM9]

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.

Well:

A significant number of "Driver/Rider failed to look properly was 25% of fatals", could have been partially or wholly because the driver of either vehicle was driving faster than road conditions safely allowed (even in within the posted speed limit)​

Inappropriate speed is a major cause of "Driver/Rider failed to judge other person`s path or speed 13%" incidents, i.e. werer all of those due to speed being too low?​

Speed is also a major factor in "Driver Loss of control 23%", as once again it relates to the conditions on the road at the time of the incedent​

This last one is often the factor of all accidents, "Driver/Rider careless, reckless or in a hurry 19%" - mostly because drivers allow insufficient time for their journey, and are willing to make hasty decisions or bully other road users in order to (what they would call) 'make progress'.​

So in the real world, these figures are just convenient pigeon holes into which coroners/prosecutors and ultimately courts segment bad driving to apply what they see as an appropriate punishment for bad driving. Speeding is likely to be at least a contributory factor in most of them. There is no apology for words like 'likely' here as there is too much lobbying in the motoring world to accept inconvenient judgements.

And of that 15%, how much was entirely due to speed, and how much was speed a contributory factor but not the main cause?

And how many of them wouldn't have happened at all had those involved been driving at appropriate speeds?

 

[miami]

Speeding is likely to be at least a contributory factor in most of them

Yet actual data refutes your assertions.

We can look in RAS50008 and see that of the 314 of 1421 fatal accidents had speed as a contributory factor, or 22%, with 7% travelling too fast for conditions and 15% exceeding the limit.

If we look at all reported accidents including non fatal, this drops to 11%

But you don't like actual data as it doesn't back up your defense of real problems, like drivers overtaking bikes too close, or drivers driving on pavements, or drivers tailgating, or indeed bad junction design.

 

[AM9]

Yet actual data refutes your assertions.

We can look in RAS50008 and see that of the 314 of 1421 fatal accidents had speed as a contributory factor, or 22%, with 7% travelling too fast for conditions and 15% exceeding the limit.

If we look at all reported accidents including non fatal, this drops to 11%

But you don't like actual data as it doesn't back up your defense of real problems, like drivers overtaking bikes too close, or drivers driving on pavements, or drivers tailgating, or indeed bad junction design.

I don't actually care about the data, it's there because there had to be some easily understood conclusion, especially in a legal analysis, and the laws concerning speeding are woefully full of loopholes. No accidents are improved by greater speeds, and speeding above the limit produces situations that aren't to be expected by compliant road users.
Roll on the days when vehicles have key driving errors mitigated by automation. Inappropriate speeds for location, surface conditions, visibility and traffic speeds/density will eventually break the habits of some of the persistent speeders.

 

[typefish]

Why should it be your decision whether any given speed limit is reasonable or not?

Fundementally, you don't have any right to be driving at all. It's a privilege, and that privilege comes with the expectation that you will follow the rules which have been set down for the safety and convenience of everyone, on both the inside and outside of wheeled metal boxes. Whether you think that those rules are reasonable or not is irrelevant.

Well, the fact I've had a fair few speed limits increased after informing local councils of why I believed those speed limits were too low makes it my decision... I guess?

An obtuse answer aside, speed limits are generally wrong because they are essentially a one size fits all thing.

Anyhow, if you wish to have your eyes opened - go onto twitter or other social media and state that you believe that police officers and other emergency workers should be restricted to speeds that normal people like you and I are restricted to, for the interests of public safety

Very muted death threats was the result when I decided to poke that hornets nest!

 

[py_megapixel]

Anyhow, if you wish to have your eyes opened - go onto twitter or other social media and state that you believe that police officers and other emergency workers should be restricted to speeds that normal people like you and I are

This is a useless comparison.

Ambulance drivers for example are highly trained in the safety of driving at speed and there is the societal understanding that an ambulance on blue lights is performing an extremely important duty and they are the priority on the roads; this is why car drivers are seen changing lane or even mounting the kerb to allow an ambulance to pass along a busy street.

Private drivers on the other hand take a few lessons, and could have had no experience of handling any kind of vehicle on the road beforehand. They then sit a couple of tests and they're good to go, and will probably never even consider retaking any kind of course on it for the rest of their life, excluding a court order to do so or the somewhat unlikely scenario that they apply for a driving-centric job which requires additional training, such as HGV driving.

I genuinely don't understand what you mean by them being wrong because they're one-size-fits-all. Pedestrians and cyclists don't have to follow them (though they rarely reach the limit anyway!), emergency vehicles are exempt when using their blue lights.

 

[DustyBin]

I sense a degree of general anti-car sentiment here, perhaps not suprising as this is a rail forum....

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.


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.


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.

70mph on many (not all) motorways is too slow. The limit hasn't been increased since the days of Morris Minors etc. and in my opinion contributes to the frustration and lack of concentration that in turn contributes to poor driving and accidents. Sitting at 70mph over a long distance in the average modern car is a painful experience. There's no reason why any competent driver couldn't maintain (say) 80mph, conditions permitting, on a decent motorway. Make it part of the driving test or "refresher" that I proposed previously just to be on the safe side.

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.

I fully agree with your final sentence. Part of the problem is it's easy to catch and generate revenue from speeding drivers. It's much more difficult to catch people who don't indicate, undertake, drive erratically etc. so general bad driving goes largely unpunished.

Maximum speed limits are obviously too high, if lots of 'accidents' occur when vehicles are doing legal speeds. Plenty of those in 'accidents' might have been under the maximum but were going too fast, doing 5 mph instead of waiting at a junction, reversing without looking, following too close etc.

Quite possibly other experts disagree with the 15% quoted above.

Apologies if this sounds obtuse, but you appear to be suggesting that cars shouldn't move at all! What has reversing without looking got to do with speed limits? Your example of carrying on at 5mph instead of stopping at a junction has nothing to do with speed limits either; the junction could be at the end of a 20mph road or a 50mph road, failing to stop is a matter of driver (in)competence.

 

[miami]

Sitting at 70mph over a long distance in the average modern car is a painful experience

I find cruise control to be immensely useful, be it at 50mph in a long roadworks, or **mph down the M5.

Part of the problem on motorways is that they are on the most part far busier then they were in the days of morris minors. Lane 1+2 are often filled with lorries doing 56mph +- 1%, so a car in the outside lane doing 90mph produces a very large speed differential.

On a mostly empty motorway - say M6/74 north of J36, M5 south of J20, etc, sure, 80 or even 90 isn't going to cause a problem. But then people driving at 80 or even 90mph in those circumstances aren't going to get fined.

Motorways are the safest roads we have* - 4 times safer than strategic A roads, and those killed or injured has come down 40% in the last decade, vs 30% on strategic A roads. Sadly while just 46% of cars break the limit on the motorway, a whopping 86% break it on a 20mph road and 52% on 30mph roads+. This is completely the wrong way round if you're concerned about reducing danger.

* 2019 - 1.2 killed per billion miles, vs 4.9 on strategic A roads. 12 vs 52 for KSI.
+ https://www.dpp-law.com/driving-offences-statistics/

 

[ABB125]

70mph on many (not all) motorways is too slow. The limit hasn't been increased since the days of Morris Minors etc. and in my opinion contributes to the frustration and lack of concentration that in turn contributes to poor driving and accidents. Sitting at 70mph over a long distance in the average modern car is a painful experience. There's no reason why any competent driver couldn't maintain (say) 80mph, conditions permitting, on a decent motorway. Make it part of the driving test or "refresher" that I proposed previously just to be on the safe side.

The only issue with raising the speed limit is that the "70mph" speed to which all modern roads are designed is actually 120km/h (75mph), so some might argue that it would be unsafe to drive any quicker. I would argue that the standards are somewhat gold-plated!
I'm not sure what the design speeds of really old roads is, nor when 120km/h became the standard. However, there's an easy way to find out what the practical maximum speed of a road is ("should be"): drive quicker until it no longer feels safe! (As an official exercise, not as a private individual.)

Obviously in urban areas it wouldn't necessarily be appropriate to increase the limit.

Motorways are the safest roads we have* - 4 times safer than strategic A roads, and those killed or injured has come down 40% in the last decade, vs 30% on strategic A roads. Sadly while just 46% of cars break the limit on the motorway, a whopping 86% break it on a 20mph road and 52% on 30mph roads+. This is completely the wrong way round if you're concerned about reducing danger.

* 2019 - 1.2 killed per billion miles, vs 4.9 on strategic A roads. 12 vs 52 for KSI.
+ https://www.dpp-law.com/driving-offences-statistics/

Indeed. It would be much more beneficial to properly enforce lower limits in urban areas where pollution and the pedestrian-car interface are problems than on segregated roads where pedestrians (and cyclists) either aren't allowed (motorways and "special roads") or would have to be particularly brave/foolhardy to travel along (many major A-roads, such as the A34/A14 etc).

 

[typefish]

This is a useless comparison.

No it's not.

Physics applies equally to people driving safely for their own personal enjoyment and people driving to save a life - unless you've found a magical way that the possession of blue lights somehow makes a driver infallible and immune from the effects of making a mistake when under "blue mist"? Please, let me know.

I genuinely don't understand what you mean by them being wrong because they're one-size-fits-all.

A single carriageway road where I used to live was good for a safe 80mph, whilst there were bends on this road that had poor onward visibility - one example would be one curve is quite shallow but due to a strong tree/bush cover limiting onward visibility would be quite touchy at speeds at greater about 55mph or so due to the presence of a set of crossroads (and therefore stationary traffic) immediately after the bend.

Therefore, the need for a compromise speed limit

 

[Bletchleyite]

No it's not.

Physics applies equally to people driving safely for their own personal enjoyment and people driving to save a life - unless you've found a magical way that the possession of blue lights somehow makes a driver infallible and immune from the effects of making a mistake when under "blue mist"? Please, let me know.

You miss the point. Clearly going faster poses more risk. However that is partly mitigated by a high standard of training, and an acceptance in society that the slightly higher residual risk is acceptable to save a life.

 

[miami]

Physics applies equally to people driving safely for their own personal enjoyment and people driving to save a life - unless you've found a magical way that the possession of blue lights somehow makes a driver infallible and immune from the effects of making a mistake when under "blue mist"? Please, let me know.

Blue lights and siren means
1) Driver better trained than average
2) Car in better condition than average
3) Other road users more aware of vehicle than average

All of that means it's safer for a blue light car to travel at 30mph than a non-blue-light car to travel at 28mph in the same conditions.

 

[typefish]

You miss the point. Clearly going faster poses more risk. However that is partly mitigated by a high standard of training, and an acceptance in society that the slightly higher residual risk is acceptable to save a life.

I'm not missing the point, I'm deliberately pointing this point out to highlight some very strange hypocrisies when it comes to road safety

But if this risk can be mitigated with additional training, then why isn't this additional training (along with additional culpability) offered to regular drivers?

1) Driver better trained than average
2) Car in better condition than average

The "average" ability of driving in this country is poor

 

[Bald Rick]

The "average" ability of driving in this country is poor

But far, far better than in most other developed countries. One trip on the roads of the US or France will show you that.

 

[DustyBin]

But far, far better than in most other developed countries. One trip on the roads of the US or France will show you that.

This is true, frighteningly!

 

[AlterEgo]

Blue lights and siren means
1) Driver better trained than average
2) Car in better condition than average
3) Other road users more aware of vehicle than average

All of that means it's safer for a blue light car to travel at 30mph than a non-blue-light car to travel at 28mph in the same conditions.

4) The vehicle is enroute to an incident where its rapid arrival may save a life.

70mph on motorways is fine for me. Most cars become far less efficient above 50-60mph so increasing the speed limit has a serious side effect in the amount of fuel consumed and hence the vehicle’s emissions.

I'm not missing the point, I'm deliberately pointing this point out to highlight some very strange hypocrisies when it comes to road safety

But if this risk can be mitigated with additional training, then why isn't this additional training (along with additional culpability) offered to regular drivers?

Because there’s an increased risk with every blue light journey - nobody thinks there isn’t. This risk is offset by the fact the vehicles are responding to emergencies.

There’s no need for you to drive like a police interceptor.

 

[miami]

But far, far better than in most other developed countries. One trip on the roads of the US or France will show you that.

And the stats. UK has 33 deaths / 10b km compared with 44 in Germany, 70 in USA, 54 in France, 56 in Japan, etc.

Most cars become far less efficient above 50-60mph so increasing the speed limit has a serious side effect in the amount of fuel consumed

A valid point, and behind speed limit reductions in the 70s, however as cars are becoming more efficent and moving to electric increasingly from a green grid this problem wanes in importance.

Better solution to the problem would be to tax the carbon emissions rather than an arbitary. One car driving at 90mph for an hour uses less fuel, and thus creates less pollution, than a car doing 70mph for 3 hours.

Another option would be to make the 3rd lane an EV vehicle only lane and have a limit for EVs of 80mph.

4) The vehicle is enroute to an incident where its rapid arrival may save a life.

That's a good reason to take an increase in risk, but not a reason that risk would reduce.

Like everything, transport is a risk, and we as a society determine the acceptable risk/benefit ratio.

 

[Bald Rick]

Better solution to the problem would be to tax the carbon emissions rather than an arbitary.

Isn’t that what fuel duty does by default? At the rate of £248/tonne CO2 for petrol, £222/tonne CO2 for petrol.

 

[ABB125]

Isn’t that what fuel duty does by default? At the rate of £248/tonne CO2 for petrol, £222/tonne CO2 for petrol.

And that's why fuel duty is, in my opinion, one of the most effective "taxes" in this country, making it all the more difficult to replace.

 

[DustyBin]

Another option would be to make the 3rd lane an EV vehicle only lane and have a limit for EVs of 80mph.

The problem with this is unless you have an expensive high end EV (e.g. Tesla, Ford Mach-E etc.) you’re not going to be sitting at 80mph, and certainly not for any length of time!

 

[Bald Rick]

This is true, frighteningly!

Indeed. In over 30 years of driving I have only ever seen 2 accidents actually happen on U.K. motorways. (Although many more in aftermath)

In two weeks of driving on US Freeways / Interstates I saw three accidents actually happen. Standard disclaimer about statistics and the law of small numbers.

 

[Domh245]

But far, far better than in most other developed countries. One trip on the roads of the US or France will show you that.

The number of cars on french autoroutes with significantly damaged body panels is terrifying

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not missing the point, I'm deliberately pointing this point out to highlight some very strange hypocrisies when it comes to road safety

It's neither strange nor a hypocrisy to suggest that if someone is doing a driving job that is specifically intended to save or protect life (i.e. emergency services) that different rules should apply to them when in that context (and that context alone - no reason for an ambulance to be driven at high speed when not on a call).

But if this risk can be mitigated with additional training, then why isn't this additional training (along with additional culpability) offered to regular drivers?

You can pay for that training if you wish. But as your driving is not for the specific purpose of saving or protecting life, you don't get to pose the extra risk, so you don't get the right to higher speed.

The "average" ability of driving in this country is poor

I can't disagree with that, but it should be put into the context that the UK is actually one of the best countries in the world for driving standards and road safety, which really says something about how bad it is in some other countries.

4) The vehicle is enroute to an incident where its rapid arrival may save a life.

Exactly. That is the sole reason why higher speeds on blue lights are justified; the additional training is a mitigation. Of course, anyone who does want to be trained to a higher standard has a wide range of such courses available to them commercially if they want, such as Advanced Driving courses, skidpans and all sorts of other stuff, but simply completing one of those courses doesn't and shouldn't give a right to higher speed alone.

I suspect were you in the very rare position of having called the emergency services to someone who was at serious risk of death but them having told you they could not attend quickly, such as if overwhelmed by a very major incident locally, if you were stopped by Police for speeding (as distinct from cameras) they'd likely be lenient to a bit of slight speeding.

 

[ABB125]

Indeed. In over 30 years of driving I have only ever seen 2 accidents actually happen on U.K. motorways. (Although many more in aftermath)

In two weeks of driving on US Freeways / Interstates I saw three accidents actually happen. Standard disclaimer about statistics and the law of small numbers.

I've never seen (or been held up by) a crash in the short time (year and a half) since I started driving.
As a passenger, I can only remember two: one on the M54 at least 10 years ago when we were going on a family trip to the RAF museum at Cosford, we hit a queue shortly after the M6, and stayed in that queue for some hours! (Incidentally, that's the only time I've ever walked on a motorway: a visit to the bushes on the slopes of the cutting was required... .)
The other time was last year 2019: we'd been on a weekend trip to the Spa race circuit in Belgium, and on the way back there was a car on fire on the M25 near Heathrow. A minute or so later and the road may well have been closed! So I'd definitely agree that UK roads are safe!
Here's the car on fire, luckily they managed to find refuge on the ghost island.

I can't disagree with that, but it should be put into the context that the UK is actually one of the best countries in the world for driving standards and road safety, which really says something about how bad it is in some other countries.

We were on holiday once in Italy. The driving was... utterly appalling! We went up Vesuvius on one day, and the company which ran the minibuses up there put us and another family in an 8-seat minivan. The driver seemed not to realise that it is possible to change gear before you hit the rev limiter!

Having said that, there were one or two sensible practises, like beeping the horn when going round a sharp corner, to warn cars coming the other way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Having said that, there were one or two sensible practises, like beeping the horn when going round a sharp corner, to warn cars coming the other way.

On a single track road/blind summit that does make sense and I do it myself (learnt that from an accident I had when I was 18 which was on a blind bend on a single track road). On a road wide enough for two vehicles, then that rather says a lot about Italian drivers and their desires to overtake even when unsafe!

 

[ABB125]

The number of cars on french autoroutes with significantly damaged body panels is terrifying

On the subject of French Autoroutes, we had a near miss on one in 2018 (I can't remember exactly which one, but it must have been between Lyon and Reims, so that narrows it down to either the A6, A31, A5 or A26). On another family holiday, this time to southern France (plus a quick foray into Italy; this was a very unplanned holiday, basically "we'll go to France, and sort out accommodation as we go along"!). My dad put my older brother on his car insurance for the week (which was fun for my brother: driving a car twice as long as his with over twice the power on the wrong side of the road!). There was a sudden swerve on one occasion; it transpired that a Range Rover had appeared from nowhere in lane 2, so we had to make a quick exit back into lane 1! I don't know whether the fault lay with my brother for not looking properly, or with the other driver.

On a road wide enough for two vehicles, then that rather says a lot about Italian drivers and their desires to overtake even when unsafe!

I couldn't agree more!

 

[miami]

Isn’t that what fuel duty does by default? At the rate of £248/tonne CO2 for petrol, £222/tonne CO2 for petrol.

Indeed. Whether that's the right level is another matter. The problem with fuel duty is that it's a carbon tax on a specific form of carbon generator. If I charge an electric car, or a mobile phone, from my wall socket, and in the process generate a tonne of CO2, I don't pay £240, which seems wrong.

I suspect were you in the very rare position of having called the emergency services to someone who was at serious risk of death but them having told you they could not attend quickly, such as if overwhelmed by a very major incident locally, if you were stopped by Police for speeding (as distinct from cameras) they'd likely be lenient to a bit of slight speeding.

If you were speeding with someone in your car in an emergency situation, assuming you weren't driving without due care/dangerously/drunk/etc, what law would you be breaking?

I quote from the Road traffic regulation act of 1967

No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, if the observance of those provisions would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you were speeding with someone in your car in an emergency situation, assuming you weren't driving without due care/dangerously/drunk/etc, what law would you be breaking?

I quote from the Road traffic regulation act of 1967:

No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, if the observance of those provisions would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion

Is there caselaw on whether "ambulance purposes" would only apply if in use by the ambulance service rather than instead of it?

 

[bramling]

On a single track road/blind summit that does make sense and I do it myself (learnt that from an accident I had when I was 18 which was on a blind bend on a single track road). On a road wide enough for two vehicles, then that rather says a lot about Italian drivers and their desires to overtake even when unsafe!

It always strikes me as being the case in this country that many people drive way too fast on country lanes, and probably a little slow on higher standard A roads and motorways.

The “40 mph everywhere” lot seem to be the worst in that respect.