Speed bump help

[kford]

And an alert driver in a new, roadworthy car travelling at 30 mph is less likely to hit the child than an uninsured driver on the phone in an unroadworthy car travelling at 20 mph.

There are just too many variables.

And there's the argument that cameras take the responsiblity of safe driving away from the motorist, along with their concentration. It's the 'I'm doing 18 mph, so I must be safe' mentality.

But anyway, why should us law-abiding majority have to spend our journeys with our eyes on our speedos instead of on the road, just to catch out the rogues who will still be speeding?

[BJL]

kford Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But anyway, why should us law-abiding majority

> have to spend our journeys with our eyes on our

> speedos instead of on the road, just to catch out

> the rogues who will still be speeding?

I have no objection to the "law-abiding majority" of drivers who obey the speed limits and wish there were more of you. This thread was started as a discussion of ways to stop people disobeying speed limits and putting others' lives at risk.

[kford]

True, but I was pointing out that disobeying speed limits is (officially) only a small part of the problem, and that other people's lives are being put at risk by other factors, some possibly linked to speed, most not, and that speed cameras are a clumsy and heavy-handed approach to a far more complicated issue. (tu)

[PeckhamRose]

Sir Councillor ELECTED person - why did you not address my own suggestion on the previous page, made to Southwark which so many people on the street in cars and pedestrians like the idea of - and someone else on here as well as myself mentioned - of getting rid of all lights (ok, some by schools are important) and street furniture and endless signs. Car drivers WILL be slower if they are unsure and realise they are HAVING to concentrate to work out who is next to cross. Pedestrians also will take more care. The amount of people who cross a road because they are looking at a light which is flashing a green man, makes me laff. They are looking at a SIGN which tells them to cross; not at the car which cares not for the sign which is heading straight for them.

I talk to strangers, I'm strange like that - and I would say there is more support for this idea than you realise.

As a motorcyclist I am specially aware of the dangers - but having an experiment in a small area would most certainly be a good idea. You wrote below : --

Cllr Richard Thomas Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There are very few alternatives to humps available

> to councils.

That you're willing to consider, you mean.

> For example, the police won't

> enforce traffic offences in 20mph zones.

I am glad to hear it. They have enough on their plate.

> The best hope is average speed cameras which track a

> vehice's speed over a distance between two points

> and fines anyone who covers the ground too

> quickly.

Yay more cameras, more money!

> They are being trialled in Camden I

> think. I am pushing for Southwark too be allowed

> to install them too. Any suggestions as to where?

If they're good enough for Camden, it does not mean we have to follow like lemmings.

BE BRAVE SOUTHWARK COUNCILLORS. Take an initiative. Have an original THOUGHT (ok, I thought of it, and other places in Europe have done it.)

> I think Barry Road might be a good place to start.

You do, do you?

Well think again - the number 12 bendy busses act as an automatic barrier for most transport up there.

That road is dangerous as any other. ROundabouts and taking signs and lines and so on away make more sense.

[Cllr Richard Thomas]

PeckhamRose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sir Councillor ELECTED person - why did you not

> address my own suggestion on the previous page,

Sorry - I did mean to respond to that. I am really keen on this approach. I visited holland to look at these ideas in practice and have listened to Hans Mondiman - the guru of this approach - talk, he was inspirational. The two areas in which I managed to progress this approach when I lead on transport was in building Southwark's first Home Zone in Sutherland Square and on the Walworth Road - where we have got rid of guard railing and introduced shared surfaces - to an extent that I have not seen anywhere elese in London or the UK on a main road. You ask us to be brave - well, I took quite a lot of flack for that project - and no doubt mentioning it now will invite some more!

Both those examples were 'special projects' with very specific one-off funding streams. Integrating the ideas more widely is more tricky, not least because it is often very expensive and because our fuding streams from TfL are very restrictive. But some principles can be applied more widely - like trying to use less paint and avoiding use of guard railing, street signs are now screwed to walls - not installed on posts.

Barry Rd is very straight and that is why people speed because the sight lines are so clear. I am not sure that simply taking away the signs and lines would be enough to create the ambiguity that approach relies upon, I think you'd have to spend a lot of cash That's whay I suggested cameras there.

[lozzyloz]

I like the Walworth Rd improvements. Improves the feel of that area and is safer for cyclists. Would like to see that roll out nationally.

[kford]

Cllr, the shared surface schemes are great, so good for you for putting up with the flack in getting it through. They go some way to achieving the effects of the Dutch scheme, which, like PeckhamRose, I support fully. As a motorcyclist, cyclist, driver and pedestrian, I can see the benefit from all angles.

Cameras would have to be placed on every exit of Barry Road, or they would only catch through motorists, and then only if they average the wrong speed for the the entire length of the route; it wouldn't stop them zooming up to 50, then crawling along behind the number 12 to get an average of 20. Again, too many variables.

And if the sight lines are so clear on Barry Road, why the need for a camera-and-fine enforced 20 mph limit? Unless this is about making money?

[lozzyloz]

The dangerous bits of Barry Rd are:

* The junction with Underhill Rd

* The ridiculous angle for turning right into Forest Hill Rd

* Cars parked too close to the corner opp Etherow St

[blinder999]

I live near the Underhill / Barry Rd junction, and motorised vehicles are always bombing down it. I've been tailgated and overtaken when I've been driving at 30mph on Barry Rd.

I fully support speed cameras for this road.

[kford]

lozzyloz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The dangerous bits of Barry Rd are:

>

> * The junction with Underhill Rd

> * The ridiculous angle for turning right into

> Forest Hill Rd

> * Cars parked too close to the corner opp Etherow

> St

Which cameras would not make safer.

Nor, blinder999, would they stop tailgating. They will just be tailgating with their eyes half on the road, half on the speedo. It's what happens on average speed camera zones on the motorway (and in which accidents have actually RISEN since introduction (TRL595 http://www.safespeed.org.uk/trl595.html), but that's another story.

Nor would they stop overtaking, because you can still maintain an average speed by slowing down or stopping before the second camera.

A visual dialogue between all road users, in a zone clearly marked as such, would solve these problems.

[blinder999]

> http://www.safespeed.org.uk/trl595.html), but

> that's another story.

That interpretation by 'safespeed.org' (looks like another mouthpiece for petrolhead lunatics to me) of selective data concerning "injury crash risk for Gatso type cameras in motorway road works" isn't remotely similar to Barry Road. A quick google search on the effectiveness of speed cameras brings up data from plenty of other independent organisations:

Here's the first link I clicked on:

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/speed_lawenf.html

Institute studies show that automated speed enforcement can substantially reduce speeding on a wide range of roadway types. Six months after implementation of speed cameras on residential streets and school zones in Montgomery County, Maryland in 2007, the proportion of drivers exceeding speed limits by more than 10 mph declined by about 70 percent.

Implementation of a 9-month pilot program using fixed speed cameras on a busy urban freeway in Scottsdale, Arizona, in 2006 was associated with up to a 95 percent decrease in the odds that drivers would travel more than 10 mph above the posted 65 mph speed limit.9 And, within 6 months of the implementation of speed cameras on streets throughout the District of Columbia in 2001, the proportion of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by more than 10 mph declined 82 percent.10

Research conducted outside the United States also shows large effects of speed cameras on traffic speeds. For example, in Victoria, Australia, speed cameras were introduced in late 1989, and police reported that within 3 months the number of offenders triggering photo radar decreased 50 percent.11 The percentage of vehicles significantly exceeding the speed limit decreased from about 20 percent in 1990 to fewer than 4 percent in 1994.

[kford]

Your figures are just about reducing SPEED, which cameras obviously do. My argument, based on the DfT's own figures, is that the problem lies in areas other than speed, which cameras are incapable of dealing with.

On the subject of SafeSpeed.org, here's an article referring to the owner of that website you dismissed as 'for petrolheads' by the editor of the Observer, the last publication you'd expect to be endorsing such a site: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,6903,1530242,00.html

The second paragraph is very relevent. I find it incredible that the DfT tells road users to Think!, yet you're proposing a device which encourages us to do exactly the opposite.

[blinder999]

http://sjhoward.co.uk/medicine2/speed-cameras-an-appropriate-public-health-protection-measure

"Arguments about unfairness in speed camera prosecutions, leading to apparently ?safe? drivers being caught while ?dangerous? ones get away (13) can largely be refuted by evidence which shows (14) that those caught by a speed camera had twice the chance of being involved in a recent crash over the general population, as well as the bare fact that only those caught actually breaking the law are prosecuted."

[kford]

My bug bear is with average speed cameras, not fixed position ones.

If you're caught by a fixed one, I agree, you're a dangerous driver.

And his figure about speed being the biggest cause are incorrect. DfT suggests a figure of 5%.

[blinder999]

> And his figure about speed being the biggest cause

> are incorrect. DfT suggests a figure of 5%.

from the dft website (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanagement/speedknowyourlimits):

There exists no precise figure for the

contribution speed makes to causing

the collisions, but analysis of casualty

statistics in Great Britain has shown

excessive speed to be a contributory

factor in 12% of all injury collisions,

18% where there is a serious injury

and 28% of all collisions which result

in a fatality.

[Torben Pieknik]

I can't see the objection to speed cameras. If you don't speed you don't get caught. So don't speed.

[kford]

Torben Pieknik Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If

> you don't speed you don't get caught. So don't

> speed.

Correct, but average speed cameras will trap the safe law-abiding driver who inadvertently strays above the limit while trying to keep their eyes on the road and not on the speedometer. If you drive, you could find yourself one of them.

[lozzyloz]

It's not that difficult to drive at a constant speed. It's one of the basic things you learn before passing your driving test. If you can't do that (law abiding or not) then you shouldn't be on the road. Furthermore it takes a nano second to glance at your speedo. To argue a picture of drivers gripping the steering wheel white knuckled, weaving all over the road and too scared to take their eye of the clock is nonsensical. By far the vast majority of drivers can see the GATSO in advance and slow down accordingly. Yes they might well speed up again, but if it is placed strategically within an accident hot spot it will reduce accidents. What it won't stop are the unregistered, uninsured drivers who deliberately flout the law on and off the road with little chance of getting caught.

[kford]

I'm not talking about GATSOs, I'm talking about average speed cameras, set over an entire road.

You're dead right with the last point LL.

[lozzyloz]

Thanks Kford, but I'm referring to both types of camera speed trap. All the points I've incurred on my license have been as a result of me driving too fast (17 to date). Not because I inadvertently strayed over the limit. The most effective camera's imo are the mobile ones. Now when I approach a stretch where I've seen a mobile camera I think twice.

[paps]

You will only get caught by an average speed check if your average speed is 36 mph or over (in a 30mph zone). If you momentarily break the speed limit you won't get caught provided your average speed over the course of the cameras' monitoring area is less than 36mph. If your average speed is 36 mph over a whole road then you must have either been driving like a mad man for a short period or driving consistently above the speed limit over the course of the whole road.

Seems pretty fair to me.

[PeckhamRose]

We're not just looking at speed cameras though. There are endless signs telling us what to do, how to drive, where is what, what sort of a zone we are in, what sort of driving we can do, whether we should turn right or turn left, whether the next road is a cul de sac, there is a law that says there must not be a TVscreen in front of the driver's sightline and yet satnavs are just that so some drivers are also looking at satnavs, there are road humps that we are having to negotiate right in front of us when advanced driving tells us to look ahead and plan ahead.

And you're telling us to drive safely and keep our eyes on the road as well?

If one more person tells me that if I am driving within the speed limit then I should not worry I shall use their face for a parking space. Does it never occur to you that the speed limits may be inappropriate? Many cases specially in motorcycle forums prove that a legal defence can be that one was riding excessively (ie over the limit) but not inappropriately (ie. the biker read the road and rode an appropriate speed for the road conditions, weather conditions, and whether the road was in a residential area or not).

That's like saying if you don't break the law then you have nothing to worry about. What happens when they bring in a law that squeezes what you think you are legally doing into something illegal? Do you want us to support you?

lozzyloz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's not that difficult to drive at a constant

> speed. It's one of the basic things you learn

> before passing your driving test. If you can't do

> that (law abiding or not) then you shouldn't be on

> the road. Furthermore it takes a nano second to

> glance at your speedo. To argue a picture of

> drivers gripping the steering wheel white

> knuckled, weaving all over the road and too scared

> to take their eye of the clock is nonsensical. By

> far the vast majority of drivers can see the GATSO

> in advance and slow down accordingly. Yes they

> might well speed up again, but if it is placed

> strategically within an accident hot spot it will

> reduce accidents. What it won't stop are the

> unregistered, uninsured drivers who deliberately

> flout the law on and off the road with little

> chance of getting caught.

[PeckhamRose]

Well done Elected Councillor Richard Thomas.

Having ridden down Walworth Road I did find it peculiarly smooth. Does shared useage mean that pedestrians can now LEGALLY walk across the road in front of me and then if I run them over I am in trouble? Does it mean I can ride on the pavement and if they walk into ME I still get in to trouble?

How does a blind person (sorry, is that an un-PC way of saying someone with no sight) tell when the pavement ends and the road begins?

I like the Walworth Road improvements. But then all roads are great when they've been resurfaced! Isn't it about time a utility company came along and dug it up again!?

;)

[lozzyloz]

Not sure what you're point is PR. Are you saying you find it difficult to drive safely because you're overloaded with too much information? Or are you advocating the banning of all speed limits and suggesting that we leave it to personal judgement? What's your view on road safety and how to reduce accidents?

You can park your bike between my cheeks if you like.

[blinder999]

I was enjoying that safespeed.org site - they seem to think they're a super race of advanced drivers who must be allowed to decide for themselves what speed they roll at.

And bikers on the moral highground wtf??? If any of them could keep out of the bus lanes, cycle lanes and advance cycle areas it would be cause for celebration. But obviously, over on the biker forums, they've long ago concluded that they don't like those rules much either.