On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 10:43:04 GMT, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:

Really? So you'd prefer to let drivers speed and then penalise them
afterwards, rather than give them every incentive and reminder not to speed
in the first place?snip

This is not the intention of covert cameras. The intention is that
they are hidden, so to avoid a fine the driver would obey the limit at
all times, rather than emergency brake on seeing a camera (*very*
dangerous and liable to cause accidents[1]) as at present.

The standard of driving through 50 limits on motorways has, in my
mind, increased substantially since SPECS cameras started to replace
Gatsos, stopping this accelerate-brake business. On a motorway, it
also reduces the number of jams caused by the brake-light effect.

Of course, this kind of thing should be accompanied with increases in
the speed limit where appropriate. The speed limit should be such
that it is the maximum safe speed for that location (with certain
assumptions about the vehicle concerned). It should not be
ridiculously low as it is in places.

[1] Yes, I know, you should drive such that if the car in front
stopped dead (e.g. by hitting an obstacle) you would be able to as
well. However, there are too many people who drive so close that
*touching* the brakes would result in a rear-ending. Of course, it'd
be the rear-ender who paid the bill (assuming they were insured), but
it's still not worth the hassle...

Neil

--
Neil Williams
is a valid email address, but is sent to /dev/null.
Try my first name at the above domain instead if you want to e-mail me.

tim wrote:
"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
Martin Underwood wrote:
I didn't know this. I suppose it fits in with the modern ruling that speed
cameras should be made highly visible so they act as a deterrent, on the
lines that it's better to slow cars down than simply to penalise the drivers
after the event for speeding.

An argument which is of course complete drivel.

eh? surely this is always the case. Lets replace speed with murder.

Do you think that it is drivel to say:
It is better to discourage murder than to simply peanilise the murderer?

No, the fallacy lies elsewhere.

"We don't want you to speed here, so we'll put up numbers in big round
signs."

"But we REALLY don't want you to speed here, so we'll put up a big
yellow camera."

Prevention of law-breaking is best achieved if potential law-breakers
believe there's a real chance of being caught - whatever the crime and
wherever it's committed.

And for one of the other responders to my comment, the argument about
setting appropriate speed limits is completely separate from the
argument about enforcing the limits set.

Colin McKenzie

In article , Robert Woolley
writes

Speed does kill. You don;t have to be a genius to understand that the
faster the speed of a vehicle, the longer it takes to stop. And the
faster it hits something else the greater the damage.

No. Bad driving kills. The driver selects what speed they drive at. If
that speed is inappropriate then it's bad driving. Nothing else.

I'm a former member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists. Are you?
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

In article , Colin McKenzie
writes

And for one of the other responders to my comment, the argument about
setting appropriate speed limits is completely separate from the
argument about enforcing the limits set.

No it isn't. The 2 go hand in hand. The straight bit of road through
Penn near where I live has virtually no houses on it. Just a pub and a
couple of mansions. The limit is 30MPH.

The stretch of road before that has a 40MPH limit and is all twists and
turns and has 'Ice' warning signs present in the winter. It's not
possible to get up to 40MPH on that bit of road without leaving the
carriageway but the straight and clear road has a lower limit.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

"Andrew P Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , Colin McKenzie
writes

And for one of the other responders to my comment, the argument about
setting appropriate speed limits is completely separate from the
argument about enforcing the limits set.

No it isn't. The 2 go hand in hand. The straight bit of road through
Penn near where I live has virtually no houses on it. Just a pub and a
couple of mansions. The limit is 30MPH.

The stretch of road before that has a 40MPH limit and is all twists and
turns and has 'Ice' warning signs present in the winter. It's not
possible to get up to 40MPH on that bit of road without leaving the
carriageway but the straight and clear road has a lower limit.

Precisely: there are some speed limits, like the one that you describe, that
are less worthy of being enforced than others. Sadly, reducing speed limits
is seen as the easy no-brainer solution to accidents, somewhat akin to a
schoolteacher keeping everyone in detention because someone has written a
"naughty" word on the toilet wall. A better solution is one that targets the
specific offenders without penalising everyone.

It is not speed that kills - it is the inappropriate use of speed for the
circumstances as they exist at the precise time. In other words, a road that
carries a 40 mph speed limit may require drivers to slow down to 20 mph or
less if there is a mother and child walking along the pavement and the child
is pulling away from its mother to look at "that nice little doggy" on the
other side of the road. Likewise if the road is icy or visibility is reduced
by fog.

It is a great shame that the IAM seems content to abide by whatever speed
limit or other restriction has been set, rather than campaigning to get
absurd limits raised or excessively restricting junctions re-designed. As an
IAM member myself, I sometimes despair of their hands-off
we-don't-want-to-get-involved attitude.

When I was preparing for my IAM test, my "observer" (instructor) criticised
me for indicating too much, on the grounds that if I indicated at junctions
where there was no-one to see my signal, it showed that I hadn't read the
road correctly. He seemed to be incapable of appreciating the concept of
"fail-safe" - get into the habit of always doing it and you are less likely
to forget when it *does* matter. Sometimes a pedestrian or another car will
be able to see me (and my indicator) long before I can see him, and the
earlier he knows my intentions, the better prepared he is. If I delay
signalling until I eventually see the other car, it may be too late. Like
many experts, you need to decide which bits of their advice to accept and
which to quietly ignore.

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 17:18:43 +0100, Andrew P Smith
wrote:

In article , Robert Woolley
writes

Speed does kill. You don;t have to be a genius to understand that the
faster the speed of a vehicle, the longer it takes to stop. And the
faster it hits something else the greater the damage.

No. Bad driving kills. The driver selects what speed they drive at. If
that speed is inappropriate then it's bad driving. Nothing else.

I'm a former member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists. Are you?

Nope.

But I hold a PSV licence, gained after comprehensive training. I also
hold a RoSPA road safety engineering certficate, a BSc in Transport
Management and Planning, Chartered Membership of the Chartered
Institute of Logistics and Transport, plus Corporate Membership of the
Institution of Highways and Transportation.


Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

"Robert Woolley" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 17:18:43 +0100, Andrew P Smith
wrote:

In article , Robert Woolley
writes

Speed does kill. You don;t have to be a genius to understand that the
faster the speed of a vehicle, the longer it takes to stop. And the
faster it hits something else the greater the damage.

No. Bad driving kills. The driver selects what speed they drive at. If
that speed is inappropriate then it's bad driving. Nothing else.

I'm a former member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists. Are you?

Nope.

But I hold a PSV licence, gained after comprehensive training. I also
hold a RoSPA road safety engineering certficate, a BSc in Transport
Management and Planning, Chartered Membership of the Chartered
Institute of Logistics and Transport, plus Corporate Membership of the
Institution of Highways and Transportation.

OK. Maybe you can answer this question: what are the circumstances under
which a single 4-way roundabout should be replaced by two linked 3-way mini
roundabouts? There's a sod of a junction near me which always gets snarled
up with traffic (junction of Drayton Road, Spring Lane and the two halves of
Ock Street in Abingdon) and it seems to me that it would have a much greater
throughput of traffic if it was converted back to a single larger roundabout
because it would save drivers having to check twice for vehicles from their
right - once on the first roundabout and then again on the second.

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 17:34:48 GMT, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:


"Robert Woolley" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 17:18:43 +0100, Andrew P Smith
wrote:

In article , Robert Woolley
writes

Speed does kill. You don;t have to be a genius to understand that the
faster the speed of a vehicle, the longer it takes to stop. And the
faster it hits something else the greater the damage.

No. Bad driving kills. The driver selects what speed they drive at. If
that speed is inappropriate then it's bad driving. Nothing else.

I'm a former member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists. Are you?

Nope.

But I hold a PSV licence, gained after comprehensive training. I also
hold a RoSPA road safety engineering certficate, a BSc in Transport
Management and Planning, Chartered Membership of the Chartered
Institute of Logistics and Transport, plus Corporate Membership of the
Institution of Highways and Transportation.

OK. Maybe you can answer this question: what are the circumstances under
which a single 4-way roundabout should be replaced by two linked 3-way mini
roundabouts? There's a sod of a junction near me which always gets snarled
up with traffic (junction of Drayton Road, Spring Lane and the two halves of
Ock Street in Abingdon) and it seems to me that it would have a much greater
throughput of traffic if it was converted back to a single larger roundabout
because it would save drivers having to check twice for vehicles from their
right - once on the first roundabout and then again on the second.

Sounds potentially if signals (traffic lights) might be better.

Roundabouts work best when the flows are reasonably balanced (i.e.
main road has the majority e.g. N-S with few right turners N - W).

I have a junction locally to me in Wembley which has the same problem.
LB Brent have tried all sorts of different approaches and stuck with
the double mini-roundabouts.

Usually you replace a 4 way roundabout with double minis if the
movements are relatively self contained within each mini.

Eg.

OLD:
N
W E
S

NEW:

N
W
^
|
E
S

In this situation, it make sense if W/N and S/E flows are heavy,
because you have independent mini roundabouts.

If N/S flows are heavy, then as you say you get the problem of right
turners.

Of course, any situation whe

a) land is constrained
b) flows are heavy (and the junction is over capacity)

won't be resolved by fiddling around. Either you restrain the traffic
(provide chokes to restrict traffic approaching the junction) or you
undertake demolition and land take.


Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

In article , Robert Woolley
writes

Nope.

But I hold a PSV licence, gained after comprehensive training. I also
hold a RoSPA road safety engineering certficate, a BSc in Transport
Management and Planning, Chartered Membership of the Chartered
Institute of Logistics and Transport, plus Corporate Membership of the
Institution of Highways and Transportation.


Only one of those has any relevance in your ability to drive. The rest
are not applicable in terms of your skill behind the wheel. Go sit the
advanced test, pass it, then come back. Until then, you know what to do.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

In article m, Martin
Underwood writes

"Robert Woolley" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 17:18:43 +0100, Andrew P Smith
wrote:

In article , Robert Woolley
writes

Speed does kill. You don;t have to be a genius to understand that the
faster the speed of a vehicle, the longer it takes to stop. And the
faster it hits something else the greater the damage.

No. Bad driving kills. The driver selects what speed they drive at. If
that speed is inappropriate then it's bad driving. Nothing else.

I'm a former member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists. Are you?

Nope.

But I hold a PSV licence, gained after comprehensive training. I also
hold a RoSPA road safety engineering certficate, a BSc in Transport
Management and Planning, Chartered Membership of the Chartered
Institute of Logistics and Transport, plus Corporate Membership of the
Institution of Highways and Transportation.

OK. Maybe you can answer this question: what are the circumstances under
which a single 4-way roundabout should be replaced by two linked 3-way mini
roundabouts? There's a sod of a junction near me which always gets snarled
up with traffic (junction of Drayton Road, Spring Lane and the two halves of
Ock Street in Abingdon) and it seems to me that it would have a much greater
throughput of traffic if it was converted back to a single larger roundabout
because it would save drivers having to check twice for vehicles from their
right - once on the first roundabout and then again on the second.


Martin

I know the junction you mean.

We have an even worse one here in High Wycombe and as for the Magic
Roundabout in Swindon.......
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.