All hail Mr Gatso.
Aug. 3rd, 2004 05:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
zotzGiven their record on keeping taxation down during the Eighties and Nineties (abysmal, in case anybody doesn't have the figures to hand), does anyone reckon the Tories actually would cut back significantly on speed cameras should they be elected?
Naaa. Me neither. It's about as likely as a Whitehall efficiency-drive ever working as advertised.
(Oops - mistyped that as "Shitehall". How very Fraudian)
Naaa. Me neither. It's about as likely as a Whitehall efficiency-drive ever working as advertised.
(Oops - mistyped that as "Shitehall". How very Fraudian)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-08-03 10:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-03 11:08 am (UTC)I'm not actually sure it would count as a popular policy. There's certainly a bold and vocal [min|maj]ority it appeals to, but there are also opinion polls saying that 80% of people are happy with current policy concerning the things.
From here:
Speed cameras are very popular with the public: MORI in August 2001 showed that 70 per cent of respondents to a poll supported the use of speed cameras. An NOP/ Evening Standard poll in summer 2002 found that a large majority of motorists (84 per cent) in London and the southern region view the use of speed cameras as a good thing, even though more than half have been ‘flashed’, or flashed and fined, by one. A November 2002 You Gov poll by Transport 2000 showed that 75 per cent of respondents thought that cameras should be used more widely on dangerous roads. A 2003 study for the Scottish Executive carried out by researchers at Napier University said that 75 per cent of drivers thought speed cameras to be a good thing. The 2003 Used Car Market Report recorded a 62 per cent satisfaction rating for speed cameras amongst motorists.
It could backfire on them. It's very hard to say.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-03 07:10 pm (UTC)the interesting thing about the proposal is that is was suggesting lowering some limits and raising others, with the intention of making them appropriate. the problem with current speed limits is that they are so often totally inappropriate that they do not earn respect. if they were sensible, people (on average) wouldn't object to obeying them, and then you wouldn't need speed cameras.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-04 02:39 am (UTC)the problem with current speed limits is that they are so often totally inappropriate that they do not earn respect
From who? And what sort of limit would command respect? What proportion of people think that any limits need raised? I don't know if you have access to solid figures on this, but I can't find any.
There is, however, evidence that even small increases in speed limits can have large effects on road safety (and not good ones) :
The New York Times reported on 24 November 2003 that 22 states that raised speed limits in the late 1990s experienced 1880 more deaths on the road over a period of three years, compared with those states that did not raise limits.
The start of that article says A report from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says increased speed limits on Interstate highways led to nearly 1,900 extra deaths in 22 states from 1996 to 1999. ... The report, which will be released on Monday, says people are adjusting to drive above the new ...
The IIHS report says "Higher travel speeds on rural interstates reportedly are responsible for about a 35 per cent increase in death rates. [...] Researchers at the Land Travel Research Agency of New Zealand examined the number of deaths per million miles driven in US states that raised speed limits on rural interstates and in states that retained prior limits following the repeal in November 1995 of the national maximum speed limit. [...] States that increased the speed limits to 75 mph [from 65] experienced 38 per cent more deaths per million vehicle miles."
It's linked from their page here.
AFAICT the "respect" (or lack of it) that people have for speed limits isn't based on any real understanding of the safety issues involved.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-04 11:42 am (UTC)hm, that's very interesting. firstly that people seem have a natural tendency to exceed whatever the limit is by a general percentage. and as you say, this is independent of actual safety awareness.
another problem with speed limits is that they are a simplistic measurement that doesn't reflect the actual safety issues either. relative speed of vehicles, braking distance, lane width, lighting, weather conditions, curvature of roads are all totally relevant factors. now, the highway code says you should slow down under those circumstances, but again the existence of a fixed speed limit encourages you to drive at or above the speed limit.
what's interesting is that the excess percentage does seem to vary depending on those circumstances. for example, my experience of "average driving speed" on uk roads is that it's higher on a four-lane road with 70 mph speed limit than it is on a two-lane road with the same speed limit. that's what i mean by a lack of respect. drivers seem to be naturally inclined to apply more sophisticated judgements (even if flawed) than can be captured by a fixed speed.
so then we get to variable speed. this is implemented in places. however, in almost all circumstances, variable speed limits are advertised for some non-existent threat, that presumably has passed before they are able to react and revert to the default speed. this dilutes the effectiveness of the instructions.
another example on this point. at the end of my cul-de-sac is a very nasty U-bend with no visibility from either side. cars routinely drive at 20 on the wrong side of the road (as that does increase visibility). we tried to get road traffic dept to put a SLOW sign. but their policy that unless clearly demonstrating major benefit, and on a main road, the use of SLOW is discouraged as over-use has been measured to dilute the impact.
so, the requirement seems to be for appropriate, accurate, context sensitive limits. and they should then be actual limits. everyone knows that they can't prosecute unless you are a certain percentage over the speed limit, to avoid discrepancies over measurement errors etc. Therefore if you know there is a speed camera, you also know that you can get away with going faster than the limit. so why not make an accurate measurement? the problem is that all the numbers lose their meaning and become monopoly money.
i'm actually in favour of the m1 timing based speed cameras, such that if your average speed over a stretch of road exceeds the limit then by definition you must have been speeding at some point (but it also doesn't unfairly discriminate against short controlled use of accelleration for overtaking or for avoiding dangerous situations). this however in terms of voter happiness does also depend on the speed limits being "respectable".
i'm also in favour of technological solutions, particularly in the case of stopping distance. if every new car had a mandatory feature of a radar distance guage, which extrapolated forwards the current speed, had water sensors in the wheel arches, and light sensors, that could then calculate a standard stopping distance for those circumstances (you could even factor in brake-wear if you were feeling fancy), with a fixed mandatory audio warning (with perhaps a flashing light for the hard of hearing - are you allowed to drive if you are hard of hearing?) then it would encourage drivers to choose a sensible driving distance.
another possibility is automatic speed limit controlled from a central )or distributed intelligence) computer (with manual override for getting out of tight spots, see above). the car manufactuers are quite keen on this sort of thing, as it ties in with drive by wire which reduces manufacturing costs. it also allows more effective congestion management as you are able to run simulations that predict ahead from real measured data in real time, and are also able to modulate traffic speed to reduce stop-start shockwaves.
but again you will have voter reaction issues to taking control away from humans!
no subject
Date: 2004-08-04 02:41 pm (UTC)People have a wide range of perceptions of how risky speeds are - ranging from sensible to wildly out on in both directions. The upper limit seems at the moment to be determined by policing rather than perception, although the existence of a speed limit might be taken as implicit approval of doing roughly that speed under most conditions.
another problem with speed limits is that they are a simplistic measurement
Yes. However, even this is apparently a little too much for some - a poll recently asked what the normal national speed limit was. About half of drivers got it right.
drivers seem to be naturally inclined to apply more sophisticated judgements (even if flawed) than can be captured by a fixed speed.
Absolutely. And even though British driving is pretty good (we have a low accident rate) the judgements people make vary very widely. To an extent, we're all (at least sometimes) at the mercy of those who make the poorest choices.
Very much so. Variable limits are a good idea, but we're just getting into being able to do it. And as you say, conditions can vary mile by mile. All we have are "Slow" signs.
but again you will have voter reaction issues to taking control away from humans!
Very definitely, yes. It would make current controversy look trivial.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-03 11:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-03 11:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-03 02:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-04 04:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-04 06:58 am (UTC)