From: Matt B on
On 30/07/2010 07:19, Chelsea Tractor Man wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:36:38 +0100, Matt B wrote:
>>> since cameras came in (before the above
>>> years) *speeding* has dropped dramatically
>> No according to the stats. Do you have a reference?
> I already posted one for Adrian, at the time speed cameras came in we saw
> average speeds fall for the first time (it was fairly widely publicised).

If average speeds have dropped, it's unlikely that speed cameras are the
reason. Traffic calming covers more of the road network than speed
cameras do, so will have had a more significant effect.

> You say accidents fall when people drive at 20.

No, I say that appropriate speeds mean less accidents.

> Combine those two and
> there's not much of a defence against enforced speed limits I'm afraid.

Enforcing speed limits does not necessarily delover appropriate speeds,
it delivers capped speeds - an entirely different thing.

> The idea good driver training could make people drive at the correct speed
> for the situation is a fantasy not worth arguing about.

I tend to agree, I think the road system design should deliver
appropriate speeds regardless of driving skills. However, there is
evidence that those trained to drive at earlier ages become safer and
less aggressive drivers, so there is perhaps justification to teach
driving to all children before they leave school.

> It seems to me some people in this group are persuing warped logic to reach
> a position where it would be logical to not have speed limits, its a
> fantasy that isn't going to happen..

Speed limits are ineffectual. They make no difference to driving
speeds, and by effectively removing responsibility from drivers they
make driving less safe. The safest roads are the roads where speed
limits are irrelevant - i.e. roads where speed is generally well below
the limit and dictated by necessity rather than by regulation.

> cut and paste from my other post:-
> The police say that before cameras the average speeds were rising year on
> year, post cameras they fell for the first time ever
> "Free Flow Vehicle Speeds in Great Britain
> * In the ten years from 1997, the percentage of vehicles exceeding the
> 30 mph speed limit in free flow conditions has dropped for every vehicle
> type. The most significant decrease was for cars. In 1997, 70 per cent of
> cars travelled at speeds in excess of the limit; by 2007, this dropped to
> less than half."
> ""

The years during which speed humps, bus lanes, cycle lanes, chicanes and
potholes infested the country.

The Portsmouth and Hull experiences show us that speed limits are
completely ineffectual.

Matt B
From: Matt B on
On 30/07/2010 07:21, Chelsea Tractor Man wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:45:35 +0100, Matt B wrote:
>> When drivers are treated like idiots (regulated, enforced, punished)
>> they act like idiots. If there is a lapse or a gap in the enforcement,
>> speeds (and accidents) will increase. However, if appropriate speeds
>> are self-sustaining (by road design etc.) and no artificial enforcement
>> is required, drivers will behave more responsibly.
> how much is redesigning every road to max excessive speed impossible going
> to cost?

Less than you might think, and certainly less than it costs to provide
the signs, signals and controls that make inappropriate speeds
inevitable now.

The first step is to turn-off traffic lights - and save energy and cut
CO2 emissions into the bargain.

Matt B
From: Adrian on
Phil W Lee <phil(a)> gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>>> If we could make all drivers skilled and responsible

>>Easily. All we need to do is to require drivers to retake their test at
>>regular intervals, to reverse the replacement of real live TrafPol by
>>cameras, and to start actually targetting bad driving instead of merely
>>the minor low-hanging fruit.

> That's not exactly easy.
> For a start, it would cost a huge amount of money.

Relatively easy to cover with the test fees.

> I suppose we could make a start by requiring a retest of anyone
> convicted of any traffic offence.
> I cannot see any downside to that at all.

Especially in a world of policing-by-camera, would it get the ones most
in need of re-testing, though? Just think about how many people there are
who have completely clean licences yet are thoroughly incompetent and

> But once you start increasing police numbers you are going to need to
> find a way to pay for it.

Sure, costs will rise - especially initially. But the savings to the
economy through reduced delay, reduced costs arising from collisions etc
will all help to cover the costs.

> Maybe a road policing tariff added to fuel duty?

Insurance would make more sense - since it'll automatically adjust for
higher risk drivers.
From: Adrian on
Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.tractor(a)> gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

>>> the driving test tells you nothing about how drivers will behave

>> And the rest of the sentence you snipped said...?

> something I wasn't replying to.

That's strange, since it covered exactly what you went on to say.
From: Adrian on
Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.tractor(a)> gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

> Adrian is pursuing a dream of no speed limits

Am I?