Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:42:01 +0100, "PeterE"
wrote:

[snip moderate and reasonable words]

The thing is, I mostly agree with you /except/ that there is
compelling evidence that speeding, at least speeding sufficient to
cause a Gatso to trigger, is in and of itself dangerous. I would
suggest that the Gatsos are a reflection of an increasing
determination to speed, rather than the other way around.

A disturbing outbreak of agreement here. However surely it is dependent both
on the physical road environment and the circumstances at the time whether
speeding past a Gatso does, or does not, significantly increase risk (see
earlier reply to WK about the Z-curve). You can't say it *always* does, nor
can I say that it *never* does.

I first noticed seriously aggressive overtaking and extremes of
speeding in the mid 1980s, at a time when selfishness was being
promoted as socially desirable and arrogance was admired in the press.
The Gatso didn't start arriving until about 1991, and even now most
cameras I see are in locations where there is a clear and obvious
reason, outside schools and playing fields.

Certainly around where I live many of the Gatsos are on wide main roads well
away from shops and schools, often on near motorway standard dual
carriageways with no property frontages where the limit has been reduced.

In my experience I would say the noticeable increase in discourtesy and
aggression on the roads (which certainly does seem to be true) has mainly
occurred in the past ten years.

I know that not al are,
and I know that many speed limits are arbitrary - but the old
objective criteria were just as bad. You couldn't get a speed limit
in a village with narrow roads and no footways until enough people had
been killed.

I'm never totally convinced by this - surely if it was a "village" in the
usual sense of the word then it would have qualified for a speed limit
anyway. I can't think of any villages on my home patch that have never had a
speed limit, apart from one where to put up 30 signs might encourage people
to speed up.

And if the message of adhering to speed limits is to be more persuasive then
steps must be taken to make limits more consistent, and restore faith in the
speed limit setting process.

Is it possible to gain a substantially greater degree of genuine
speed limit compliance (rather than prosecution avoidance) mainly
through persuasion? I would suggest to a large degree it's a
somewhat Quixotic quest

Maybe, maybe not. My Mum has now stopped speeding, since the "if he'd
been doing 30 he would have stopped here" campaign.

But I suspect her son may have bent her ear a bit.

Speed cameras in the past have been deliberately concealed, giving
the impression that deterrence is not the first priority.

I don't know about you, but if I were inclined to speed the knowledge
that any tree could conceal a camera would be a much stronger
deterrent than knowing that all cameras are brightly coloured and
visible a mile off. Enforcement activity usually works best when it's
not widely advertised in advance.

But the cameras were inconspicuous, not totally hidden, so people found out
where they were soon enough, and the fact that they had been placed behind
signs and bushes was destructive of trust. Obviously the knowledge that any
tree could conceal a camera, and many did, would be a serious deterrent, but
it was never like that.

I would also question why so few permanent systems of SPECS cameras have
been installed even though they promote adherence to the limit throughout
the length of the road rather than just at a fixed point. They're not cheap,
but they're not that much dearer than Gatsos. So if they're so good, why are
they so few?

they are normally found on the widest, straightest, most open
stretches of roads and rarely on shopping streets or outside schools.

Not where I live, but maybe where you are.

See above. Even where it's all a reasonably appropriate 30 limit, the Gatso
tends to be where the road is widest and the houses are fewest, often also
on a downhill slope.

Also much of the pressure for lower limits and tougher enforcement
has come from organisations that are interested as much in curbing
car use as in improving safety, which in turn makes people more
likely to doubt the argument.

Ah, well, I have a degree of sympathy with their aims. Riding to work
today, first full week of the school holidays, the roads were deserted
and much more pleasant for that :-)

Maybe, but people are rightly suspicious of ulterior motives.

So it's hardly surprising that the majority of drivers play "dodge
the Gatso"

Majority? I'm not sure that most are playing that game, I think most
are simply in the habit of speeding; once the habit is broken they
would probably just drive legally and still be content.

No, drive along any road where the typical speed is more than 5 mph above
the posted limit and you'll see a ripple of brake-lights as they draw level
with the Gatso, often slowing well below the limit. Personally I regard it
as a failure of observation if I need to use the brakes.

I accept many drivers are basically just not very aware of speed limits -
hence the well-known "40 everywhere" phenomenon. I don't encounter many
other drivers who show any sign of adhering to limits - those who drive at
40 in the 40 don't slow down when entering the 30, those who drive at 30 in
the 30 don't change their speed much if at all when entering the 40 (even
where the houses markedly thin out).

It's often the less observant rather than the quickest who are more likely
to be caught.

I may be wrong, but it does seem to me as if urban speeding is in
decline at the moment. People then seem to make up for it by driving
at motorway speeds along country lanes, which is a bit hair-raising.

Oh, a quick trip around Greater Manchester would quickly disabuse you of the
notion that urban speeding is in decline.

It may amuse you to learn that last week a "yoof" got out of the passenger
door of a white van and made a "******" gesture at me, presumably because he
or his driver felt I had been driving too slowly along a very hazard-rich
stretch of urban road.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"If laws are to be respected, they must be worthy of respect."

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:10:33 +0100, "PeterE"
wrote:

A disturbing outbreak of agreement here.

Heh! :-)

However surely it is dependent both
on the physical road environment and the circumstances at the time whether
speeding past a Gatso does, or does not, significantly increase risk (see
earlier reply to WK about the Z-curve). You can't say it *always* does, nor
can I say that it *never* does.

No, but you can say that on balance it /generally/ does, which is my
point. It would be much easier to defend increases in limits in
various places, including the motorway, if the limits we had were more
widely obeyed. This also depends of course on reasonable behaviour
from politicians, so I'm not holding my breath.

around where I live many of the Gatsos are on wide main roads well
away from shops and schools

Can't comment on that as it's different from my experience. Although
to be fair I rarely notice Gatsos these days, for obvious reasons. I
do think they should put a speed limit repeater on the back instead of
the silly Diamond Grade, though.

In my experience I would say the noticeable increase in discourtesy and
aggression on the roads (which certainly does seem to be true) has mainly
occurred in the past ten years.

Hmmm. I would say it's been a steady decline for twice that long.
But these are subjective measures.

You couldn't get a speed limit
in a village with narrow roads and no footways

I'm never totally convinced by this - surely if it was a "village" in the
usual sense of the word then it would have qualified for a speed limit
anyway.

Nope. We lived in a village small enough for a letter addressed to
"Guy and Felicity, Checkendon" to be delivered - it had narrow roads,
no footways, a school, and a national speed limit. Checkendon now
has a 30 limit and traffic calming.

And if the message of adhering to speed limits is to be more persuasive then
steps must be taken to make limits more consistent, and restore faith in the
speed limit setting process.

No disagreement there. The Oxfordhsire definition of village for
30mph purposes includes anywhere there was a shepherd's bothy listed
in the Domesday book. I subvert the system, as you know, by riding a
bike and going at my own pace. Increasingly my answer to arbitrary
speed limits, congestion, mad traffic, jams and so on is "******** to
it" and get the bike out. I quite often ride to St Albans (40 miles
each way) rather than drive.

Is it possible to gain a substantially greater degree of genuine
speed limit compliance (rather than prosecution avoidance) mainly
through persuasion? I would suggest to a large degree it's a
somewhat Quixotic quest
Maybe, maybe not. My Mum has now stopped speeding, since the "if he'd
been doing 30 he would have stopped here" campaign.
But I suspect her son may have bent her ear a bit.

Actually not. I think my bro-in-law might have done, he's a
motorcyclist and an unusually careful driver.

the cameras were inconspicuous, not totally hidden, so people found out
where they were soon enough,

Hard to completely conceal something that big which needs a clear view
of the road, I would suggest.

and the fact that they had been placed behind
signs and bushes was destructive of trust.

Well, that demands a certain mindset. For me, speeding was never so
much of a rush that I missed it. I used to drive about 25,000 miles a
year on business, would regularly do 500 miles round trip with a day's
work in between, but faced with a choice between points and slowing
down it was never a tough choice even when I did speed.

I would also question why so few permanent systems of SPECS cameras have
been installed even though they promote adherence to the limit throughout
the length of the road rather than just at a fixed point.

I don't know enough about it to have an opinion.

Even where it's all a reasonably appropriate 30 limit, the Gatso
tends to be where the road is widest and the houses are fewest, often also
on a downhill slope.

Maybe because that's the point where people tend to floor it?

people are rightly suspicious of ulterior motives.

I would say that the aims of such groups are openly stated.

drive along any road where the typical speed is more than 5 mph above
the posted limit and you'll see a ripple of brake-lights as they draw level
with the Gatso, often slowing well below the limit.

Oh believe me that ****es me off big time. It's indicative of a more
serious problem, though, that many poeple don't care enough to know
what the limit is or how fast they are going. Either that or they are
dissociated active and should be taken off the roads altogether.

Personally I regard it
as a failure of observation if I need to use the brakes.

In "level flight" I quite agree.

I accept many drivers are basically just not very aware of speed limits -
hence the well-known "40 everywhere" phenomenon. I don't encounter many
other drivers who show any sign of adhering to limits - those who drive at
40 in the 40 don't slow down when entering the 30, those who drive at 30 in
the 30 don't change their speed much if at all when entering the 40 (even
where the houses markedly thin out).

Ah, the 40 everywhere flat cap brigade. Yes, another candidate for
the wall after the revolution ;-) I would be more comforted if their
speed changed in response to the layout of the road and the dangers
presented, but many of them don't seem to be taking any notice at all
of what's going on around them.

It's often the less observant rather than the quickest who are more likely
to be caught.

In some ways that may not be an entirely bad thing. Poor observation
is a cause of many crashes, after all.

a quick trip around Greater Manchester would quickly disabuse you of the
notion that urban speeding is in decline.

Yes I normally stick to quiet places like the Thames Valley and
occasionally Birmingham, Luton, St Albans or Ross.

It may amuse you to learn that last week a "yoof" got out of the passenger
door of a white van and made a "******" gesture at me, presumably because he
or his driver felt I had been driving too slowly along a very hazard-rich
stretch of urban road.

It doesn't amuse me at all - that kind of thing can be quite scary (I
think I mentioned I've been on the receiving end of three traffic
tantrums). My Volvo is rather recognisable (it has mirrored windows
from when I used to carry a lot of computer equipment) and I'm always
worried that one of these ****-for-brains types will take out his
frustration when my wife and kids are in the car. It's even more
scary on the bike, because that's even more distinctive.

I suppose overflowing anger is understandable given that, short of
paving over the entire country, there is no realistic likelihood that
congestion will ever go away, but I do think that traffic tantrums
should be taken much more seriously. Baxter, for example, with
convictions for violent offences following two separate traffic
incidents, should never drive again.

The core of the problem for me of course is that careless, fast and
aggressive driving is substantially more dangerous to cyclists and
pedestrians than it is to those doing the driving. All my family
cycle, we do it partly for our health but mostly because we live in a
town and we would rather be part of the solution than part of the
problem.

Guy
===
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk: Respectable rules for responsible people

"PeterE" wrote in message
...
W K wrote:

Note that if you said PeterE's statement could be considered as
anti-car trolling.
It means that its possible that going 10% over the speed limit could
increase danger.

I've never disputed that in broad terms there is a correlation between
speed
and risk.

I realise that. Its the more extreme elements that would go all silly about
that one.

But what I've argued is that it isn't a steady linear or geometric
progression, it's more in the nature of a Z-curve, where risk rises very
rapidly between 0 mph and speeds where collisions may prove lethal, then
flattens out over a range of "safe speeds" where it is possible to stop
within one's field of vision, and then rises rapidly once the maximum safe
speed is exceeded.

I don't think that middle part is completely flat.
Because of:
a) unusual, unexpected, or bizarre events where an object/person/vehicle can
arrive in one's field of vision, causing a collision.
b) the effects of anything unusual at the various speeds (ie less risk of
injury if the unexpected becomes an accident, easier to get out of
difficulties).
c) An effect of statistical mush - if you overlay similar but slightly
different conditions into one definitions, you have to overlay and average
out those Z- curves until you get something with more curved boundaries.
ie - road X on a clear sunny day might have the Z point at 40 mph - yet
various other factors might shift that between 30 and 50 for different cars
or subtly different circumstances.

W K wrote:
"PeterE" wrote in message

But what I've argued is that it isn't a steady linear or geometric
progression, it's more in the nature of a Z-curve, where risk rises
very rapidly between 0 mph and speeds where collisions may prove
lethal, then flattens out over a range of "safe speeds" where it is
possible to stop within one's field of vision, and then rises
rapidly once the maximum safe speed is exceeded.

I don't think that middle part is completely flat.
Because of:
a) unusual, unexpected, or bizarre events where an
object/person/vehicle can arrive in one's field of vision, causing a
collision.
b) the effects of anything unusual at the various speeds (ie less
risk of injury if the unexpected becomes an accident, easier to get
out of difficulties).
c) An effect of statistical mush - if you overlay similar but slightly
different conditions into one definitions, you have to overlay and
average out those Z- curves until you get something with more curved
boundaries. ie - road X on a clear sunny day might have the Z point
at 40 mph - yet various other factors might shift that between 30 and
50 for different cars or subtly different circumstances.

It's not completely flat, but over a range of speeds (which obviously does
vary according to the conditions) it rises only very gradually.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"If laws are to be respected, they must be worthy of respect."

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:30:07 +0100, "PeterE"
wrote:

[speeding past a Gatso does/does not increase risk]

on balance it /generally/ does
In my experience it could be said that on balance it *generally*
doesn't.

I think this may be a case of angry dolphins. Or at least cross
porpoises. I read your comment as meaning "speeding past the speed at
which the Gatso would flash" but reading again I don't think that's
necessarily what you meant. Speeding above Gatso speeds is,
statistically, dangerous, as I think you've acknowledged up there ^^^
in dialogue with WK.

By saying speeding above Gatso speeds is "dangerous" you're implying that
obeying the posted limit at those locations is "not dangerous". Of course,
one is only more dangerous than the other by a matter of degree.

If the Gatso is on a busy high street, or on a narrowish residential road,
then driving at a speed high enough to trigger the Gatso may be
significantly more dangerous than driving past it at 30 mph.

If the Gatso is on a rural 70-limit dual carriageway or a motorway-standard
expressway with no property frontages where the limit has been cut from 70
to 50, then driving past it above the trigger speed may be only marginally
more dangerous than driving past it at the posted limit.

And if you're driving along the road with looking for Gatsos as your prime
concern, then it may increase danger overall.

You could also argue the opposite way that if *some* limits were
increased (in particular motorways, 30s on major outer-suburban
roads, and sub-NSLs on rural main roads) then the limits we had
*would* be more widely obeyed.

Not only could you do so, I have argued this. But it is easy to see
why politicians are reluctant to increase limits because (a) why give
them new limits when they don't use the ones they've got and (b)
politicians are weasels. Also (c), (d) and (e) which are the same as
(b).

So politicians impose limits which they know will be routinely ignored and
enforced scarcely ever at all, to gain brownie points amongst local voters
and show that "something has been done".

Mrs Miggins complains that cars are frightening her pussy by driving far too
fast past her cottage door, which is on a small NSL road with seven other
houses in half a mile. So the councillors put a 30 limit there. The
"village" has now been protected by a new speed limit, and Councillor Jones
¶ gets Mrs Miggins' vote and is re-elected. The actual average and 85th
percentile speeds of vehicles along the road are completely unchanged. Once
every couple of years, Thames Valley Constabulary have a little jaunt into
the country and do Farmer Brown for driving at 43 mph along there in his
Range Rover. What a victory for road safety.

¶ I thought "Councillor Smith" might be inappropriate ;-)

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"If laws are to be respected, they must be worthy of respect."