Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15134 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 1:41 pm Post subject: Edingburgh Faux Pas Could Render Their Speed Cameras Useless
Many towns and cities have been introducing 20mph speed limits in built up areas and Edinburgh are proposing to do the same. However, it has been brought to light that more than half of Edinburgh's speed cameras are the older Gatso's that use RADAR and these are only Home Office Type Approved for checking speeds over 30mph. This means they would not be able to be used to enforce any 20mph limit and, add to that the fact that the police have stated they won't be routinely monitoring the new 20mph zones, it does make you wonder if any of this has been seriously thought about.
It makes sense to have 20mph limits in areas near schools etc but, as alluded to in the source article (see below), lowering too many roads to 20mph will only hold up the traffic. If this happens then people will naturally drive over the speed limit - safe in the knowledge that the police probably aren't watching and the speed cameras are ineffective.
The article also ignores the fact that 20mph zones are apparently less safe.
The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by over a quarter (26 per cent) last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists. Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent.
In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads. Serious accidents went down nine per cent on 30mph roads and seven per cent on 40 mph roads. There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads.
Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise. Serious casualties increased by 29 per cent while slight casualties went up by 19 per cent.
IAM chief executive Simon Best said: “The government and councils need to take stock on the effectiveness of 20mph signs. Recent advice, guidance and relaxation of regulations has all been about making it easier for councils to put 20mph limits in place.
“More and more roads are being given a 20mph limit but they do not seem to be delivering fewer casualties. The IAM are concerned that this is because simply putting a sign on a road that still looks like a 30mph zone does not change driver behaviour. More evaluation and research is needed into the real world performance of 20mph limits to ensure limited funds are being well spent. In locations with a proven accident problem, authorities need to spend more on changing the character of our roads so that 20mph is obvious, self-enforcing and above all contributes to fewer injuries. In Europe, it is long term investment in high quality segregated or shared surfaces that have led to a much safer environment for cyclists and pedestrians.” _________________ "You have reached your destination"
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14889 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:10 pm Post subject:
jc50 wrote:
The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by over a quarter (26 per cent) last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists. Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent.
[snip]
Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise. Serious casualties increased by 29 per cent while slight casualties went up by 19 per cent.
[snip]
“More and more roads are being given a 20mph limit [snip]
OK, so I've snipped selectively, but surely it follows that if you increase the numbers of 20mph roads and reduce the numbers of 30mph roads, you'll get more accidents on 20mph roads and less on 30mph roads - if you reduced all motorway speed limits, except on the M1, to 60mph, you'd get hugely reduced numbers of accidents on 70mph roads and loads more on 60mph roads - so reducing the speed limit would definitely not improve the accident statistics for 60mph roads - so it would be a failed policy!!
They need to adopt a sensible policy concerning 20mph limits. For starters, handing the power to local councils leaves the principle down to the strictures of local government budgets and local vote chasing politics. The national government didn't simply change the existing 30mph rules to read 20mph, because all local councils would have (rightly) demanded funds to implement it. So the implementation is at local discretion. Hence, here in Keynsham, we have 20mph on side roads, but 30 on through roads. There are about 8 entrance routes to the town, all currently with 30mph signs. Now, we have I don't know how many side road signs for 20mph entrance and 30mph exit, plus a lot of 20mph repeaters where there were never any 30mph repeaters. I hesitate to think how much that hardware alone cost my Poll Tax!! Then, enforcement is a ridiculous situation - never ever will a policeman come round our estate with a laser to trap anybody.
In my idea, the national political government should have decided to change unilaterally, leaving none of us in doubt about whether we're in a 20 zone - they all are.
But having taken up the option, my local council should have declared the whole of Keynsham 20mph, replaced the entry 30mph signs with 20mph and posted large, prominent entry signs saying Keynsham is now a 20 zone throughout. Then police carry out a couple of months of heavy enforcement to get it under way - the only feasible speeding zones are where the current 30mph routes have been retained unaltered - school or not, no copper ever comes near our street with a speed gun. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 9:20 pm Post subject:
Never look a good statistic in the mouth Dennis. Your logic is impeccable, but is it miss-guided? Who knows. But it is a well known fact that political ends take absolutely no notice of facts.
My post was a little tongue in cheek as statistics can be used to prove almost any argument.
What is needed is a fair and enforceable system of appropriate speed limits for the circumstances that prevail at the time. This does not mean local councillors using speed limits as a local vote catcher and bowing to local resident pressure.
The use of schools and home zones as reasons is emotive, at 3am in the morning why is there a need to drive past a school at 20 mph ? _________________ "You have reached your destination"
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14889 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:59 am Post subject:
jc50 wrote:
at 3am in the morning why is there a need to drive past a school at 20 mph ?
Because the school trip to Mexico has just returned and dropped off 27 drunken, tired and ratty kids who will run out of the gate to the road where they expect the speed of passing juggernauts to still be restricted to 20mph so they can safely play Chicken as a grand finale to their trip. Wherever there is a speed limit, anybody is entitled to expect motorists to obey them at all times. Or maybe it's safe to drive past schools at 100mph at 3am - or at 10:30am when all the kids are safely locked inside? The theory that it's safe to exceed speed limits at certain times and/or under certain driving conditions is rubbish.
jc50 wrote:
Appropriate speed limits for the circumstances that prevail at the time
Do you ever drive along a stretch of managed motorways - variable speed limits/cameras? They are always "appropriate speed limits for the circumstances that prevail at the time", aren't they? Do you ever think they are wrong? If so, it means that YOU believe you know better than the nice man with the switch. But he believes he knows better than the nice man with the accelerator. In fact, the person who TRULY knows best, is the driver with the biggest accelerator. Innit?
When I mention local political vote catching, I am thinking more of the politicians who will OPPOSE 20mph zones, merely because they are in opposition to the political party who are proposing them. It happens in virtually every aspect of local government politics. In any given town, ruling party A will propose 20mph zones and parties B, C, D etc will oppose them so that you will vote for them next time rather than party A. Or parties B, C, D etc will propose 20mph zones because ruling party A hasn't and then you'll not vote for party A. Naff all to do with safety - that's just a handy word to use to get the voters in!
And Miss Guided is nothing to do with it, M8TJT. And when did the girl guides start entering Miss competitions anyway? It is a well known fact that statistics prove that only 98.6% of statistics are accurate, so ALWAYS doubt them in case you're looking at some of the 1.4% wronguns (actually, 1%, because 0.4% are Don't Knows). _________________ Dennis
Just to be clear I am not advocating breaking the speed limit at any time.
My belief is there should be appropriate speed limits at appropriate times. Managed motorways are a perfect example.
All motorised vehicles to have a red flag waving person walking in front. That would solve unemployment issues overnight. _________________ "You have reached your destination"
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:19 pm Post subject:
jc50 wrote:
My belief is there should be appropriate speed limits at appropriate times.
But your belief possibly seems to differ from the people who stet the speed limits, as they set them in accordance with their beliefs. Their belief, rightly or wrongly, is that a 20MPH speed limit in certain areas will improve road safety.
If one sees a speed camera in a 20MPH limit, I think that one would be foolish in the extreme to assume that it was a non approved camera in the box, or even any camera in the box, let alone whether the police actually check them.
My post was a little tongue in cheek as statistics can be used to prove almost any argument.
Actually that is totally untrue. As a branch of Mathematics, Statistics (like any Science or Engineering) has many rules on correct application and presentation. If these are properly followed and explained fully, only robust answers to an argument are produced. In this case, obviously, number of accidents per road mile is the correct parameter.
However, what use is a clear, repeatable, justifiable answer to any politician, union, environmentalist, or other campaigner. They don't want facts to confuse the situation.
Devils advocate on browsing this:
Maybe 20mph zones are showing an increase in accident stats, as there's more of a "pedestrianised zone" perception in these areas, and thus pedestrians aren't following the green cross code as much??
We have a local Gatso outside a school. The limit is now 20mph. I actually suspect the camera is still set at 30mph
Cheers _________________ Cheers
Peter
Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 running old version of Sygic GPS Navigation
Replaced TomTom GO920
Do you ever drive along a stretch of managed motorways - variable speed limits/cameras? They are always "appropriate speed limits for the circumstances that prevail at the time", aren't they?
No. Though they ARE often appropriate speed limits for the circumstances that prevailed 4 hours ago, managed by the same "man with the switch" who controls the matrix signs which warn of Ice on the M5 through Devon. In August. _________________ TomTom XL V4 Europe
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14889 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:03 am Post subject:
pdfbt40 wrote:
jc50 wrote:
My post was a little tongue in cheek as statistics can be used to prove almost any argument.
Actually that is totally untrue.
Well, only insofar as jc50 provided an incomplete statement. He should have said "..... can be used to prove almost any argument is correct OR "..... can be used to prove almost any argument is incorrect. In which case his statement is totally TRUE.
For example, if the argument is put forward that chickens get killed because they cross the road, statistics of the numbers of chickens setting out to cross the road can be compared to statistics of the numbers of chickens arriving at the other side of the road in order to prove that chickens do NOT get killed because they cross the road (the statistics give the same numbers) or that they DO get killed because they cross the road (the statistics show lesser numbers for the arriving than departing). However, in this case it must also be supported by the statistics of the number of chickens which turn back and do not complete the move of crossing the road, thereby distorting the result. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14889 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:12 am Post subject:
Lincslad wrote:
DennisN wrote:
Do you ever drive along a stretch of managed motorways - variable speed limits/cameras? They are always "appropriate speed limits for the circumstances that prevail at the time", aren't they?
No. Though they ARE often appropriate speed limits for the circumstances that prevailed 4 hours ago, managed by the same "man with the switch" who controls the matrix signs which warn of Ice on the M5 through Devon. In August.
I rest my point.
And by the way, statistics prove that having a red flag waving person walking in front increases the numbers of red flag waving persons KSI whilst walking in front. Not to mention claims for red flag waving RSI. _________________ Dennis
No. All you've done is demonstrated that using a data set that does not address ALL factors in a question is incomplete and does not give a robust answer. What one can do, even with poor or no data is synthesis the necessary data. With real or synthesized data one can also address the uncertainty of the data. Then one can proceed to compare with robust clearly stated decisions criteria.
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
