# Average speed cameras on m25



## nil1121 (Nov 18, 2013)

I was driving around the M25 over the weekend thro the road works and there are the average speed cameras which the speed limit is 50mph. I am sticking to 50mph and there are people still flying past me. I want to know do these cameras actually work and are these people getting speeding tickets ?


----------



## guest100718 (Nov 18, 2013)

nil1121 said:



			I was driving around the M25 over the weekend thro the road works and there are the average speed cameras which the speed limit is 50mph. *I am sticking to 50mph and there are people still flying past me*. I want to know do these cameras actually work and are these people getting speeding tickets ?
		
Click to expand...

It is average speed after all....


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 18, 2013)

When you and all immediately around you are doing 50mph - someone doing 60mph will seem to rocket past you.  So get to an average of 50mph over a reasonable stretch when occasionally doing 60mph isn't that difficult.


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 18, 2013)

I think ASCs are the most effective moderator of speed there is! That doesn't stop me from 'hating' them - especially at weekends when there is no-one actually working in that section -  nor getting angry at the guys flying past at significantly higher! 

And that's as a motor-cyclist who hasn't yet seen one facing in the direction to pick up my plate!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 18, 2013)

On average speed - my experience of regularly having driven the M6 Toll is odd. I would drive on it early Sunday evenings. Most of the time that motorway was almost empty.  I found I could very happily drive at a steady 70mph very much more easily than when on a busy motorway when you are in middle of folks belting along at 80-90mph+ Driving at 70mph then becomes difficult.

Average speed cameras on all motorways - measuring average speed in maybe 20 mile segments - when would therefore I think find us all driving happily at around 70mph - without the need or urge to belt along at 80-90mph.  We would still be able to drive at these speeds when driving conditions deemed it sensible.  So maybe our speed limit for motorways should be expressed as average over a defined distance.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Nov 18, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Average speed cameras on all motorways - measuring average speed in maybe 20 mile segments - when would therefore I think find us all driving happily at around 70mph - without the need or urge to belt along at 80-90mph. .
		
Click to expand...

Really?  In modern cars on a quiet motorway (which are the safest roads) you think people would be happy to poddle along at 70mph?  Don't think so myself.  The government just about admitted recently that 80 is a more sensible limit nowadays, mostly due to the vast increase in the safety and reduction in stopping distances of cars since the limit was set decades ago. But they bottled increasing it in the end mostly due to pressure from the environmental interest groups.

We should do what they do in the US and other countries where you have variable limits at all times depending on the conditions.  So in some conditions 80mph is perfectly safe to do, but in others you would not want people going over 60mph.  You could argue the variable speed cameras now popping up is a way to do this, but from the ones I see they are just there to slow traffic down, sometimes for no obvious reason.  Sure reduce it to 60 if it is very busy and bad weather, but how about increasing it to 80 when you have light traffic and perfect visibility?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 18, 2013)

Hacker Khan said:



			Really?  In modern cars on a quiet motorway (which are the safest roads) you think people would be happy to poddle along at 70mph?  Don't think so myself.  The government just about admitted recently that 80 is a more sensible limit nowadays, mostly due to the vast increase in the safety and reduction in stopping distances of cars since the limit was set decades ago. But they bottled increasing it in the end mostly due to pressure from the environmental interest groups.

We should do what they do in the US and other countries where you have variable limits at all times depending on the conditions.  So in some conditions 80mph is perfectly safe to do, but in others you would not want people going over 60mph.  You could argue the variable speed cameras now popping up is a way to do this, but from the ones I see they are just there to slow traffic down, sometimes for no obvious reason.  Sure reduce it to 60 if it is very busy and bad weather, but how about increasing it to 80 when you have light traffic and perfect visibility?
		
Click to expand...

I said it was odd.  Driving along an empty motorway I found I had little feeling of the difference between driving at 70mph and 90mph - I know - as occasionally I found myself drifting up to 90mph even 100mph without realising it.  What had I to compare myself with - nothing?  Much of the time nobody to pass and nobody to catch.  

What then is the point of driving quickly on an empty motorway if you have little experience of any thrill of speed.  My own experience was that I just didn't bother.  There seemed to be no point in driving at 90mph - even although I could have done - and easily - and with little risk to anyone else.


----------



## MegaSteve (Nov 18, 2013)

Think my lad, who uses the M25 as part of his daily commute, would be over the moon to average 30mph... Struggles to achieve it even on the days he uses his 750gsxr....


----------



## USER1999 (Nov 18, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I said it was odd.  Driving along an empty motorway I found I had little feeling of the difference between driving at 70mph and 90mph - I know - as occasionally I found myself drifting up to 90mph even 100mph without realising it.  What had I to compare myself with - nothing?  Much of the time nobody to pass and nobody to catch.  

What then is the point of driving quickly on an empty motorway if you have little experience of any thrill of speed.  My own experience was that I just didn't bother.  There seemed to be no point in driving at 90mph - even although I could have done - and easily - and with little risk to anyone else.
		
Click to expand...

Surely the reason to drive faster is to save time on the journey, not for the thrill of driving quickly? It certainly is for me.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Nov 18, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			Surely the reason to drive faster is to save time on the journey, not for the thrill of driving quickly? It certainly is for me.
		
Click to expand...

Yup, me too.  Can't say I have ever experienced a thrill by driving quickly as despite wanting the speed limit upped I don't like driving quickly (by which I class as over 80mph), scares me a bit. 

The vast majority of people drive quickly on public roads because they want to get somewhere quicker to get on with doing something.  People probably drive on track days and the such like for the thrill.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 18, 2013)

Hacker Khan said:



			Yup, me too.  Can't say I have ever experienced a thrill by driving quickly as despite wanting the speed limit upped I don't like driving quickly (by which I class as over 80mph), scares me a bit. 

The vast majority of people drive quickly on public roads because they want to get somewhere quicker to get on with doing something.  People probably drive on track days and the such like for the thrill.
		
Click to expand...

All fair enough - just suggesting that if we are to be held to a speed limit on our motorways - whether it be 70, 80 or 90mph - then the safest way to do that would be as an average speed over a distance; and enable variable average speed according to traffic volumes and road conditions.  So on M6 toll - much of the time the 70mph limit is almost pointless - so when empty you could easily indicate an average speed over it's 25-odd miles of 80mph.  This would allow some driving at speeds of >80mph when driver deems conditions safe or if circumstances require higher speed for a short period - as is often required.

When I was driving up the M6 Toll I was never driving to a deadline (going north Sunday evening for work Monday).  I was quite happy to sit at a legal 70mph - and it was very easy to do - and very stress-free


----------



## Rooter (Nov 18, 2013)

Is the M6 toll got average cameras now?? oops...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 18, 2013)

At times.  Though often have traffic cops sitting on one of the bridges watching and measuring.  But I think the M6 Toll would be perfect stretch of motorway to experiment with a speed limit of 80mph average.


----------



## Rooter (Nov 18, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			At times.  Though often have traffic cops sitting on one of the bridges watching and measuring.  But I think the M6 Toll would be perfect stretch of motorway to experiment with a speed limit of 80mph average.
		
Click to expand...

I have often experimented with variable speed limits on that road! I should share my findings! then again, the forum police would not like it.


----------



## G.U.R (Nov 18, 2013)

As someone who uses the M25 very infrequently 5 or 6 times a year I don't mind the ASC what I do object to is the idiot in lane 3 doing 67MPH when the inside 2 lanes a are clear meaning all traffic has to pass him on the outside lane. It would appear that although now illegal Police are coming down as hard on these people as they are on people still using mobile phones while driving.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 18, 2013)

G.U.R said:



			...what I do object to is the idiot in lane 3 doing 67MPH when the inside 2 lanes a are clear
		
Click to expand...

Surely this is now against the law - as would the tailgating of said driver you may or may not have been doing   So you are now fully entitled to be flashing your lights and hammering your honky tonk to get them to move   Though taking them by surprise doing this not a good idea - nor would under-taking.


----------



## Imurg (Nov 18, 2013)

G.U.R said:



			As someone who uses the M25 very infrequently 5 or 6 times a year I don't mind the ASC what I do object to is the idiot in lane 3 doing 67MPH when the inside 2 lanes a are clear meaning all traffic has to pass him on the outside lane. It would appear that although now illegal Police are coming down as hard on these people as they are on people still using mobile phones while driving.
		
Click to expand...

The problem is catching them.
Traffic Police numbers are down, there are simply not the same numbers of Police on the roads to catch people in at he act.
If they do catch someone they do prosecute.
It's all well and good making up new laws if there are not enough Police to put them into practice..


----------



## Golfmmad (Nov 18, 2013)

nil1121 said:



			I was driving around the M25 over the weekend thro the road works and there are the average speed cameras which the speed limit is 50mph. I am sticking to 50mph and there are people still flying past me. I want to know do these cameras actually work and are these people getting speeding tickets ?
		
Click to expand...

They should be - they certainly are on the A23 road widening with ASL of 40mph. A lot of drivers do not realise the need for safety for the road workforce. Even at weekends when workers are not there the need to keep to the limits are necessary because of narrow lanes creating less room for error.

Take the stress out of driving :

Even at 40mph use cruise control or keep to a constant speed, using less fuel of course.

Let the impatient speed merchants bomb past you.

:thup:


----------



## londonlewis (Nov 19, 2013)

Motorways in the UK are the safest roads in the country. 
I think the facts from last year were as follows; 
Accidents on motorways represented only 4% of all motor-vehicle accidents during the year. 
These accidents only represented 2% of all fatalities. 

Most accidents occur on inner-city roads (people driving into the back of someone etc...)
But the most fatalities occur on rural roads - due to head on collisions (the impact speed is therefore significantly higher). 

Therefore you could argue that speeding on a motor way is a lower risk than driving the speed limit on a rural road. 

In terms of speed cameras. They don't clock you if you are just above the limit. There is a buffer. 
For a fixed speed camera (i.e. one of the many on the A3) the speed they flash you is 10% above the limit, plus 2. e.g. if the speed camera is set at 50, you need to be travelling above 57 to get flashed. 

For mobile speed cameras (e.g. police vehicles in a car on the motorway) I have heard they will typically not pull you over unless you are doing more than 86 (when the limit is 70). 

Therefore, you could realistically drive at 55mph during an average speed camera zone and you wouldn't be penalised.


----------



## Andy808 (Nov 19, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I said it was odd.  Driving along an empty motorway I found I had little feeling of the difference between driving at 70mph and 90mph - I know - as occasionally I found myself drifting up to 90mph even 100mph without realising it.  What had I to compare myself with - nothing?  Much of the time nobody to pass and nobody to catch.  

What then is the point of driving quickly on an empty motorway if you have little experience of any thrill of speed.  My own experience was that I just didn't bother.  There seemed to be no point in driving at 90mph - even although I could have done - and easily - and with little risk to anyone else.
		
Click to expand...

The difference between 70 and 90 MPH over a short distance doesn't make much difference but we travel to Scotland to see the outlaws every couple of years and it makes a massive difference over those kinds of distances. We travel over night when the roads are empty so the missus and kids can sleep all the way there and it takes us 7 hours door to door. If I did the same journey during the day it can take up to 12 hours! If I want to speed for the thrill I take the bike out for a good hard ride away from any speed camera sites in Cornwall.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Nov 19, 2013)

G.U.R said:



			As someone who uses the M25 very infrequently 5 or 6 times a year I don't mind the ASC what I do object to is the idiot in lane 3 doing 67MPH when the inside 2 lanes a are clear meaning all traffic has to pass him on the outside lane. It would appear that although now illegal Police are coming down as hard on these people as they are on people still using mobile phones while driving.
		
Click to expand...




Imurg said:



			The problem is catching them.
Traffic Police numbers are down, there are simply not the same numbers of Police on the roads to catch people in at he act.
If they do catch someone they do prosecute.
It's all well and good making up new laws if there are not enough Police to put them into practice..
		
Click to expand...

Spot on Imurg; absolutely no point in Parliament creating new laws if there is no instrument to enforce them.  Unfortunately the bean counters are more interested in dealing with offences that produce revenue than the ones that will actually make our roads safer so don't expect it to change anytime soon.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Nov 19, 2013)

londonlewis said:



			Motorways in the UK are the safest roads in the country. 
I think the facts from last year were as follows; 
Accidents on motorways represented only 4% of all motor-vehicle accidents during the year. 
These accidents only represented 2% of all fatalities. 

Most accidents occur on inner-city roads (people driving into the back of someone etc...)
But the most fatalities occur on rural roads - due to head on collisions (the impact speed is therefore significantly higher). 

Therefore you could argue that speeding on a motor way is a lower risk than driving the speed limit on a rural road. 

In terms of speed cameras. They don't clock you if you are just above the limit. There is a buffer. 
For a fixed speed camera (i.e. one of the many on the A3) the speed they flash you is 10% above the limit, plus 2. e.g. if the speed camera is set at 50, you need to be travelling above 57 to get flashed. 

For mobile speed cameras (e.g. police vehicles in a car on the motorway) I have heard they will typically not pull you over unless you are doing more than 86 (when the limit is 70). 

Therefore, you could realistically drive at 55mph during an average speed camera zone and you wouldn't be penalised.
		
Click to expand...

Somewhat oversimplified regarding the speed issue I'd suggest.  Motorways are generally safer because all the traffic is (or should be) travelling the same way, the joining manoeuvres are merging rather than turning, all the turning manoeuvres are removed from the main carriageway by the use of grade separated junctions and the most vulnerable groups of road users (cyclists and pedestrians who don't have a protective cage around them) are prohibited from using them.

Personally I wouldn't put the 86mph theory to the test either.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Nov 19, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			I think ASCs are the most effective moderator of speed there is! That doesn't stop me from 'hating' them - especially at weekends when there is no-one actually working in that section -  nor getting angry at the guys flying past at significantly higher! 

And that's as a motor-cyclist who hasn't yet seen one facing in the direction to pick up my plate!
		
Click to expand...

Foxholer, the limit often stays in because either the lanes are narrower than standard or because safety measures like the central barrier may not yet be fully engineered up to the standard for the full limit, not just to protect the work force.


----------



## Imurg (Nov 19, 2013)

Yes, Motorways are statistically the safest roads
There are more crashes around town, in 30 limits and the like.
Speed, however, is a huge factor.
Crash into another car at 30mph and the chances are you'll both walk away with maybe a few cuts and bruises.
If a car, doing 90, goes through the central reservation and hits another car coming the other way doing 90, nobody will be walking anywhere.

Safer they may be, but if you do have a crash on a motorway it's almost always going to be a buggy...


----------



## MadAdey (Nov 19, 2013)

From my experiences this morning of doing 40 Miles in 2 hours on the M25 I don't think there was much chance of me getting done......:sbox:


----------



## markgs (Nov 19, 2013)

The average speed cameras only work if you stay in the same lane if you change lanes they can not record you


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 19, 2013)

markgs said:



			The average speed cameras only work if you stay in the same lane if you change lanes they can not record you
		
Click to expand...


Totally false.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Nov 19, 2013)

markgs said:



			The average speed cameras only work if you stay in the same lane if you change lanes they can not record you
		
Click to expand...




Liverpoolphil said:



			Totally false.
		
Click to expand...

Is the correct answer.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 19, 2013)

Andy808 said:



			The difference between 70 and 90 MPH over a short distance doesn't make much difference but we travel to Scotland to see the outlaws every couple of years and it makes a massive difference over those kinds of distances. We travel over night when the roads are empty so the missus and kids can sleep all the way there and it takes us 7 hours door to door. If I did the same journey during the day it can take up to 12 hours! If I want to speed for the thrill I take the bike out for a good hard ride away from any speed camera sites in Cornwall.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree - and I do that as well.  Used to get the kids in their pyjamas and head off from Surrey at 6-7pm.  Get past Preston and the M6 and then M74 were empty.  Great.  But we wanted to get there asap.  Maybe sometimes we don't have to get somewhere as quickly as possible and so maybe it is sometimes good to take your time.


----------



## Fish (Nov 19, 2013)

I've never stuck to the average speeds when there are miles of average speed camera's (M6 & M25) and by saying never stuck, I mean nowhere near! Whether travelling to golf courses early morning or wanting to get back home later, no thrill seeking, just wanting to get their and get back I go as fast as I can as safely as I can dependent on the traffic and conditions and have not received a speeding ticket. 

They must work though as Clarkson fell foul to them on the M6 after midnight around Stafford and complained on National TV that there were no workmen at that time and very little traffic so felt he could increase his speed, but it cost him.


----------



## vkurup (Nov 19, 2013)

Dont worry.. soon Insurance companies will require you to have a blackbox on you machine that will record your driving style, which can be easily overlaid with GPS coordinates and therefore they can predict your driving behaviour.  So if the cameras dont get you, the insurance will get you...


----------



## Imurg (Nov 20, 2013)

The trouble is they don't give the whole picture.
The Black Box may record speed, acceleration, braking and steering but unless you have a dashboard camera they don't know the situation.
Someone could drive at the speed limit all the time, accelerate smoothly and brake smoothly - but be cutting up other drivers and pulling out at junctions/roundabouts and generally causing havoc.

And get a discount on their insurance...


----------



## AMcC (Nov 20, 2013)

Blue in Munich said:



			Is the correct answer.
		
Click to expand...

 Would have to agree to disagree on this matter, but saying no more :smirk:

We have fixed ASC on the A77 for a fairly decent length of the road and what really gets me is the people doing less than 70, 60 or 50 depending on what part of the road they are on, and seeing the cameras and immediately braking !!!!!!!  Did they not read the signs saying they were average speed cameras.


----------



## Andy808 (Nov 20, 2013)

AMcC said:



			Would have to agree to disagree on this matter, but saying no more :smirk:

We have fixed ASC on the A77 for a fairly decent length of the road and what really gets me is the people doing less than 70, 60 or 50 depending on what part of the road they are on, and seeing the cameras and immediately braking !!!!!!!  Did they not read the signs saying they were average speed cameras.
		
Click to expand...

Are they the ones heading up to and around Ayr bypass?
If so I know them well and I've not had a ticket off them even when I've not worried about speed too much (forgotten they are there!)


----------



## AMcC (Nov 20, 2013)

Yes, they stretch all the way down from Symington, round the Ayr bypass and down to Girvan.
The ones at Symington to Dutch house are now 50 mph.  The traffic generally flows at a steady speed through most of the cameras. I know the traffic boys have been patrolling and catching people who do not pass through two cameras and turn off before the second one. A good few people have been caught this way.


----------



## londonlewis (Nov 20, 2013)

Imurg said:



			Crash into another car at 30mph and the chances are you'll both walk away with maybe a few cuts and bruises.
If a car, doing 90, goes through the central reservation and hits another car coming the other way doing 90, nobody will be walking anywhere.

Safer they may be, but if you do have a crash on a motorway it's almost always going to be a buggy...
		
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. 
Head on collision for two cars travelling at 30mph = an impact speed of 60mph

Drive into the back of someone on a motorway, the impact speed is likely to be less. Unless someone is driving 120mph into the back of someone doing 60mph. 

And the typical accident on the motorway does not usually occur with motor vehicles from both sides of the motorway (i.e. a car crossing through the central reservation).


----------



## MadAdey (Nov 20, 2013)

londonlewis said:



			Not necessarily. 
Head on collision for two cars travelling at 30mph = an impact speed of 60mph

Drive into the back of someone on a motorway, the impact speed is likely to be less. Unless someone is driving 120mph into the back of someone doing 60mph. 

And the typical accident on the motorway does not usually occur with motor vehicles from both sides of the motorway (i.e. a car crossing through the central reservation).
		
Click to expand...


I think the point murg was making is that people more often than not step out of their car when accidents happen in a residential area. But on motorways people more often than not have to be cut out, or their car is on its roof. 

Low speed accidents are normally things like people pulling out in front of another car, or going to the back of someone. Both which have a low impact speed. But when you get a car hit another from behind doing 80 which pushes that car in the way of a lorry which then swerves, that lorry is going 50 with a weight of 40+ tons behind it what ever that hits is going to be crushed.


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 20, 2013)

markgs said:



			The average speed cameras only work if you stay in the same lane if you change lanes they can not record you
		
Click to expand...

Complete rubbish!

Urban myth - based on the initial 'proving' period, when they only covered 1 lane


----------



## londonlewis (Nov 20, 2013)

MadAdey said:



			I think the point murg was making is that people more often than not step out of their car when accidents happen in a residential area. But on motorways people more often than not have to be cut out, or their car is on its roof. 

Low speed accidents are normally things like people pulling out in front of another car, or going to the back of someone. Both which have a low impact speed. But when you get a car hit another from behind doing 80 which pushes that car in the way of a lorry which then swerves, that lorry is going 50 with a weight of 40+ tons behind it what ever that hits is going to be crushed.
		
Click to expand...

I agree but only 4% of all fatalaties occur on motorways. The example above is going to be a very rare incident. 
The biggest cause of incidents on motorways is due to driving whilst tired. Not driving too fast. 
Driving too fast may cause a secondary issue (i.e. if someone falls asleep at the wheel, you will have less reaction time to move out of the way) but the actual cause of the accident was not someone driving too fast. 
We could go round in circles on this all day, like driving on the M25.


----------



## vkurup (Nov 20, 2013)

markgs said:



			The average speed cameras only work if you stay in the same lane if you change lanes they can not record you
		
Click to expand...




Foxholer said:



			Complete rubbish!

Urban myth - based on the initial 'proving' period, when they only covered 1 lane
		
Click to expand...

I think this is down to Jeremy Clarkson doing something on Top gear.  I think it was true many many moons ago, but these days the Avg speed cameras use ANPR cameras, so no such options.


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 20, 2013)

londonlewis said:



			The biggest cause of incidents on motorways is due to driving whilst tired. Not driving too fast.
		
Click to expand...

Not actually doubting you, but do you have a reference - to some scientifically performed research?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 20, 2013)

Re Ayr to Girvan speed cameras.
15 years ago this road was carnage alley, at least half a dozen deaths a year, mainly young drivers.
Since the cameras went in it has totally calmed the road and I can't remember the last serious accident.

Speeding is more of a problem on the country roads which I use. 
Good adverts by David Coultard seem to make the youngsters more aware of the dangers of country driving.


----------



## Golfmmad (Nov 20, 2013)

I think the term, "Average Speed Cameras", should be changed to, Average Speed, SAFETY, Cameras. Because that's what their main target is - to slow down the motorist!
I drive on the M25, M23, A3 and A23 every day and the impatience and speed by some motorists is quite honestly, frightening at times. Especially in the rain and poor visibility with no lights on and driving too close to the car in front.

With average speed, if you drive on a 40mph limit and drive for the first mile at 60mph you will need to drive the last mile at 20mph to get an average speed of 40mph. So what is the benefit of that - driving at an excessive speed causing danger to the road force, other drivers and of course yourself. And then the ridiculously slow speed of 20mph, which in itself can cause accidents and long tailbacks.

So why not embrace ASC's by allowing more time for the journey, you never know, you might enjoy driving again.

They are here to stay - to improve traffic flow and increase safety for all concerned.

:thup:


----------



## Blue in Munich (Nov 20, 2013)

londonlewis said:



			Not necessarily. 
Head on collision for two cars travelling at 30mph = an impact speed of 60mph

Drive into the back of someone on a motorway, the impact speed is likely to be less. Unless someone is driving 120mph into the back of someone doing 60mph. 

And the typical accident on the motorway does not usually occur with motor vehicles from both sides of the motorway (i.e. a car crossing through the central reservation).
		
Click to expand...

The number of head-on RTA's that occur in 30mph limits with neither driver undertaking avoiding action is?  And the number of vehicles involved in accidents on motorways where more than one vehicle crashes into the rear of one already stationary (probably as a result of a previous accident) is?  Second scenario is, I would suggest, seriously higher than the first, so I'm not sure that the impact speed is going to be that much lower in the majority of instances as you suggest. 



londonlewis said:



			I agree but only 4% of all fatalaties occur on motorways. The example above is going to be a very rare incident. 
The biggest cause of incidents on motorways is due to driving whilst tired. Not driving too fast. 
Driving too fast may cause a secondary issue (i.e. if someone falls asleep at the wheel, you will have less reaction time to move out of the way) but the actual cause of the accident was not someone driving too fast. 
We could go round in circles on this all day, like driving on the M25.
		
Click to expand...

And 0% of vulnerable road users should be on the motorway network, thus contributing much to its safety record, along with a number of other engineering features.  Just reciting the fact that a lower level of fatal RTA's occur on motorways than other roads, without any apparent understanding of the bigger picture, as a justification that speeding on a motorway is a lesser evil than complying with the speed limit is so ridiculous as to beggar belief.

As far as the statistics that you cite go bear in mind that, unless the accident is fully investigated by a trained investigator or there is some other supporting evidence (e.g. CCTV), then they are compiled from the comments made by those reporting the accident to the police, and these drivers are hardly likely to state exactly what has happened if it will come back to haunt them.


----------



## AMcC (Nov 20, 2013)

Doon frae Troon;
Good adverts by David Coultard seem to make the youngsters more aware of the dangers of country driving.[/QUOTE said:
			
		


			Have to agree the Scottish Office have done well with that one.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## londonlewis (Nov 21, 2013)

Blue in Munich said:



			Just reciting the fact that a lower level of fatal RTA's occur on motorways than other roads, without any apparent understanding of the bigger picture, as a justification that speeding on a motorway is a lesser evil than complying with the speed limit is so ridiculous as to beggar belief.
		
Click to expand...

I never said that speeding is a lesser evil than complying with the speed limit. Those are your words, not mine. 
I will also take those statistics all day long in terms of accidents on motorways. My bigger concern is driving on rural roads, whether someone is speeding or not. 

do you have further statistics for the questions you have raised? I don't.
I also don't claim to be an expert, I was clearly stating some facts in regards to travel on motorways. Also - if it is so dangerous to drive over 70mph on a motorway, why has the government raised the idea of increasing the limit to 80mph and why is that the limit in Germany? Are all the Germans 'ridiculous' (your word, not mine?).


----------



## Imurg (Nov 21, 2013)

Driving styles differ from Country to Country in the same way that general attitude does.
The Dutch are a fairly laid-back Nation so they can get away with fewer rules/signs/limits etc..
In Britain we have a "get there quick and sod everyone else" attitude to driving.
How many people stick to speed limits on the Motorways at the moment?
Hardly any.
Make the speed limit 80 and the average speed will go up by 10 mph at the same time.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Nov 21, 2013)

Your posts, my bolding;



londonlewis said:



*I never said that speeding is a lesser evil than complying with the speed limit. Those are your words, not mine. *
I will also take those statistics all day long in terms of accidents on motorways. My bigger concern is driving on rural roads, whether someone is speeding or not. 

do you have further statistics for the questions you have raised? I don't.
I also don't claim to be an expert, I was clearly stating some facts in regards to travel on motorways. Also - if it is so dangerous to drive over 70mph on a motorway, why has the government raised the idea of increasing the limit to 80mph and why is that the limit in Germany? Are all the Germans 'ridiculous' (your word, not mine?).
		
Click to expand...

No, you're right, you didn't.  What you actually said in post 19 was;



londonlewis said:



			Motorways in the UK are the safest roads in the country. 
I think the facts from last year were as follows; 
Accidents on motorways represented only 4% of all motor-vehicle accidents during the year. 
These accidents only represented 2% of all fatalities. 

Most accidents occur on inner-city roads (people driving into the back of someone etc...)
But the most fatalities occur on rural roads - due to head on collisions (the impact speed is therefore significantly higher). 
*
Therefore you could argue that speeding on a motor way is a lower risk than driving the speed limit on a rural road.*

Click to expand...

No, I didn't quote you verbatim, but I think the gist is the same, which is more than can be said for your response where you've removed the road types to give it a completely different tone.

As to the other comments, Governments don't necessarily bring in ideas because they are sound, they bring in ideas because they are popular and so will win votes; the 80mph on motorways was being touted as the carrot to the blanket 20mph stick that was being proposed.

As to the reliance on statistics, someone said years ago that there are lies, damn lies and statistics and there is some truth in that; knowing the statistic without knowing the reasons behind it means that you can fall victim to the lies.

Imurg very succinctly surmised the differences in nationalities and thus the manner in which they may behave and thus how much or little regulation they consequently require on the roads.  I'd add a further thought; the standard of the driving test.  In Germany, you have to have your eyes professionally tested and pass a first aid at the scene of an accident course before you can take a driving test.  In Holland your licence is valid for 10 years and you have to pass another exam to renew it.  Here, read a number plate, reverse round a corner and you're good to go unaccompanied on the motorway until you are 70 without ever being tested again.  Of those three, which drivers do you think need the most regulation?  Yes, I've oversimplified that, but I'm sure you get the point.


----------



## londonlewis (Nov 22, 2013)

Blue in Munich said:



			Your posts, my bolding;



No, you're right, you didn't.  What you actually said in post 19 was;



No, I didn't quote you verbatim, but I think the gist is the same, which is more than can be said for your response where you've removed the road types to give it a completely different tone.

As to the other comments, Governments don't necessarily bring in ideas because they are sound, they bring in ideas because they are popular and so will win votes; the 80mph on motorways was being touted as the carrot to the blanket 20mph stick that was being proposed.

As to the reliance on statistics, someone said years ago that there are lies, damn lies and statistics and there is some truth in that; knowing the statistic without knowing the reasons behind it means that you can fall victim to the lies.

Imurg very succinctly surmised the differences in nationalities and thus the manner in which they may behave and thus how much or little regulation they consequently require on the roads.  I'd add a further thought; the standard of the driving test.  In Germany, you have to have your eyes professionally tested and pass a first aid at the scene of an accident course before you can take a driving test.  In Holland your licence is valid for 10 years and you have to pass another exam to renew it.  Here, read a number plate, reverse round a corner and you're good to go unaccompanied on the motorway until you are 70 without ever being tested again.  Of those three, which drivers do you think need the most regulation?  Yes, I've oversimplified that, but I'm sure you get the point.
		
Click to expand...

Now now, don't start pointing fingers, we're not in the playground anymore. 
I am astonished that you will put more faith in a sweeping generalisation about nationalities over the statistics about road safety. 
I also don't believe that it makes you a better driver just because you have your eyes professionally tested (what constitutes a pass?) or that you have to retake your licence after 10 years (how difficult is the test they take?). 
Also - when did you learn to drive? If that is all you had to do to pass your test, then I think it is best that you retire from driving. The UK theory and practical test has come along leaps and bounds since then. 

Going back to the statistics, which I am sure you will love and I am sure you will thoroughly refute.
These figures are from 2012 for Germany, Netherlands and the UK. 

Fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants
Germany 4.4 
Netherlands 3.9
UK 2.75 
Ok, so just how good are these German and Dutch drivers or were all the deaths from Brits driving abroad

Fatalities per 100,000 motor vehicles 
Germany 6.9
Netherlands 7.5 
UK 5.1 
So again, just how good are these foreign drivers or are Britain just so lucky that our accidents don't result in death but just severe paralysis? 

Road fatalities per km driven (per 1 billion km driven)
Germany 7.2
Netherlands 5.6 
UK 3.6 
So we are managing to drive further without having a fatal accident, despite our poor eyesight and the fact that we can only reverse around corners 

Total fatalities in 2012
Germany 3,600 
Netherlands 640 
UK 1,754 
I hope that I haven't oversimplified this. I also hope that my argument is based on more than just a sweeping generalisation of nationalities. 

One final point. When you discussed the three nationalities and asked 'Of those three, which drivers do you think need the most regulation?' I can't help but think that the German and Dutch drivers are subject to more regulation than the Brits anyway, which pretty much counter-argues your statement. 

I look forward to your response.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Nov 22, 2013)

Indeed we're not.  Nice piece of deflection by the way, rather than actually answering my point.

I don't put more faith in a sweeping generalisation about nationalities than statistics but I do understand how attitudes and circumstances can have a bearing on the resulting statistic.

No, having your eyes professionally tested won't make you a better driver in itself but it should be a far better test than reading a number plate at 67 feet is of assessing whether your eyesight is up to the job of seeing what you need to.  I don't know how hard the Dutch exam is to retain your licence but I do know it's infinitely harder than the 10 year re-test here.  

I passed my car test in 1988 and my motorcycle test in 1990, neither requiring me to take a theory test.  I took my LGV and PCV tests in 1997 and had to take the theory tests for those.  Any theory test that you can pass without reading the relevant driver's manual is not, in my opinion, fit for purpose, although I will agree that it is an improvement over no theory test.  Due to a DVLA error, I can't tell you when I passed my track laying vehicle test, but I obtained my driver qualification card, which allows me to drive commercial vehicles for hire or reward, in 2012.  I've also got some City & Guilds certificates relating to, and undertaken training courses, in road traffic engineering and road safety engineering.

My point throughout this has been that there is no point on baldly stating statistics as proof of anything if you don't know the reasons behind them or why they have been chosen.  You've given four sets of statistics that you seem to think justify the British as safer drivers than their European counterparts.  I'm not going to dispute their accuracy, but I fail to see their value as you have used them.  Let me explain by making up some statistics....

There are 2 countries, let's call them Oldland and Newland.  Their populations, areas, road networks and populations are so similar as to be considered equal for statistical purposes.  But Oldland has a fatality rate per 100,000 vehicles of 4.0 whilst Newland has a fatality rate per 100,000 vehicles of 2.0, half that of Oldland.  Therefore Newland's drivers are obviously twice as safe as Oldland's drivers, because as we have established there's no other difference between them.  That's obviously beyond dispute as a baldly stated fact. Yet Newland has a total of 4,000 annual casualties yet Oldland has only 2,000 annual casualties.  So how can that be when the drivers in Newland are obviously twice as safe, as we established from the previous statistic?  

What I didn't tell you is that Newland is a country rich in a commodity highly valued elsewhere in the world whilst Oldland isn't so has a much stronger economy.  Therefore the residents of Newland are much richer than the residents of Oldland and they own far more cars per head of population than the residents of Oldland; 4 times as many in fact, hence their artificially low fatality rate per 100,000 vehicles.  And because they are so rich and can afford so many cars they place less value on them and drive in a manner that causes more accidents and more casualties, twice as many to be precise.  And so a country with twice as many casualties and accidents as its neighbouring country can prove statistically that their drivers are twice as safe as that same neighbouring country's drivers.  Still trust your statistics as much?  Because basically unless you are in charge of collecting the statistics you will be fed the one that suits the person peddling the particular viewpoint that the statistic supports.  Lies, damned lies & statistics ring a bell?  

As for your final point, yes the Dutch and Germans are much more highly regulated; in obtaining their licences.  But are they as tightly regulated after they have passed their tests by their general traffic laws?  It appears to me that the British system seems to work on the basis of give anybody a licence then regulate them to within an inch of their lives, the reverse of the foreign systems as I see them.  As you said yourself, the more tightly regulated Germans have a higher motorway speed limit than the less regulated British, which tends to justify my point that they are actually less tightly regulated as drivers.


----------



## londonlewis (Nov 22, 2013)

We need to have a beer at some point to talk this over!

I understand entirely that statistics are used to mislead. 



Blue in Munich said:



			You've given four sets of statistics that you seem to think justify the British as safer drivers than their European counterparts. I'm not going to dispute their accuracy, but I fail to see their value as you have used them.
		
Click to expand...

I donâ€™t fail to see their value at all. 
Less people die in Britain every year due to fatalities on the road than in Germany. This is a pretty clear indicator that driving in Britain is safer than driving in Germany. 
The reason the other statistics were included was to try to eliminate the argument around population sizes, number of cars on the road or how much those countries actually drive their cars. I thought it was pretty thorough! 

Iâ€™d like to delve more into your two made up countries. 

Iâ€™ll take the whole of this point first. 



Blue in Munich said:



			But Oldland has a fatality rate per 100,000 vehicles of 4.0 whilst Newland has a fatality rate per 100,000 vehicles of 2.0, half that of Oldland. Therefore Newland's drivers are obviously twice as safe as Oldland's drivers, because as we have established there's no other difference between them. That's obviously beyond dispute as a baldly stated fact. Yet Newland has a total of 4,000 annual casualties yet Oldland has only 2,000 annual casualties. So how can that be when the drivers in Newland are obviously twice as safe, as we established from the previous statistic?
		
Click to expand...

Why have you only provided two data points, as my data included four separate data points? And using a statistic individually to come to a full conclusion is not a repeat exercise of what I did in my previous post. 
First analyse all data, then provide a conclusion. 



Blue in Munich said:



			And because they are so rich and can afford so many cars they place less value on them and drive in a manner that causes more accidents and more casualties, twice as many to be precise.
		
Click to expand...


There are two things I donâ€™t like about this statement. 
Firstly, we are not talking about â€˜accidentsâ€™ and â€˜casualtiesâ€™, we are talking about fatalities. 
So let me get this right. These people have become so rich that they not only donâ€™t value their possessions but they donâ€™t even value their own lives? 
Letâ€™s delve into this further. 
So the inhabitants of Newland drive around like complete lunatics without any regard for themselves or their families. They also donâ€™t care if they were to crash their cars but not be killed, even though they would then have to spend their time waiting to be towed and all the ensuing time spent sorting out with insurance companies etc... 

Iâ€™d be more willing to accept your argument about statistics if you were able to use real life examples and insight of why the data I have provided does not genuinely argue that drivers in Britain are in fact safer than drivers in Germany. 



Blue in Munich said:



			Still trust your statistics as much? Because basically unless you are in charge of collecting the statistics you will be fed the one that suits the person peddling the particular viewpoint that the statistic supports.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I still trust my statistics. I chose them. 
I wasnâ€™t responsible for collecting the data behind the statistics but I chose to use these in my argument. 

Feel free to find a set of statistics which will argue that drivers in Germany are in fact safer than drivers in the UK. 



Blue in Munich said:



			Lies, damned lies & statistics ring a bell?
		
Click to expand...

More people are killed each year in Germany as a result of a road fatality than in the UK. 
Is this a lie? Is this a damned lie? *It is* a statistic. 
It is factually correct. 

I believe my four chosen statistics are a very solid argument claiming that British drivers are in fact safer than German drivers. I also donâ€™t believe that you can truly argue against this without providing any form of hard facts or evidence and therefore statistics. 


Thanks again Blue â€“ I enjoy a good conversation and a good debate. Hope you have a good weekend Sir and I look forward again to your reply.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Nov 23, 2013)

The reason for the scenario with the two made-up countries was simply an exercise to show how, by choosing the manner in which you present your statistics, you can skew them to get the proof for a chosen truth, whatever that truth may be.  The reason for only choosing 2 when you presented 4 was that a) I only needed to use two to show how statistics can be manipulated, and b) it was Friday night, it had been a long week at work and I'd had too much Scotch to sit there working another 2 stats it to prove a point I felt had been adequately made.

Your choice of statistics wasn't unreasonable in your attempt to eliminate differences, but as far as I am concerned, the statistics in question were flawed before we started, which is why I fail to see any value in them.  To count the number of accidents and divide it by head of population simply tells you how many accidents you have per head of population; it doesn't tell you how many of that population hold a driving licence, which can be vastly different.  When you count accidents in a country, that is precisely what you count; the driver's nationality doesn't come into the simple count so without some other evidence to prove that foreign nationals have been removed it doesn't necessarily prove that one country's drivers are better than another's because they have less accidents.  Casualties per vehicle number may or may not be for vehicles registered or for vehicles in use, so may not be entirely useful, but the most important reason why I would never consider that these statistics are a valid comparison is that the drivers in question were not driving on the same roads, under the same conditions, subject to the same rules and regulations and therefore we are not comparing like for like.  Germany's winters are far more severe than ours; how many accidents are attributable to weather conditions rather than driver ability or inability?  How many actually involve Germans, rather than drivers passing through?  We aren't taking the same exam; if I were to play the local 18 hole public course in less shots than Tiger Woods plays Bethpage Black then I'm the better golfer, right?  They're both public courses, the measure of ability is the number of shots taken is the accepted measure of ability and I took less, therefore I'm better. QED.  Of course we both know that is probably the biggest loads of cobblers ever typed on here, the courses, conditions and any number of things aren't comparable but if it actually happened it would not be a lie or a damned lie, it would be a statistic & a fact.  A fairly useless one but a statistic and a fact nonetheless. 

The issue with this one and the ones you have chosen is that they count WHAT has happened; they do not count HOW or WHY and I contend that without adding that to the equation then you cannot say that it is proof of a standard of driving.

Two final points;  you refer only to fatalities rather than the accepted standard of KSI's (killed or seriously injured), and it is now generally accepted that there is a large degree of under-reporting in the UK.  Hospital and insurance company stats prove that the number of accidents that happen are far higher than those reported to police and the statistics you quote will be obtained from police reports.  So we aren't quite as safe as we think.  And the EU keep statistics for road safety called the Road Fatality Rates; on the last one I can find, Germany's is higher than the UK's, but not by as much as Wikipedia's, but the Dutch one is lower than the UK's unlike the three you used, which goes to prove that the truth is entirely dependent on the statistic you choose to use.  

As you said earlier, we could go round in circles on this all day, like driving on the M25.  Nothing personal but as far as I'm concerned, I think I've reached my exit junction.  ​


----------



## NST (Nov 24, 2013)

For mobile speed cameras (e.g. police vehicles in a car on the motorway) I have heard they will typically not pull you over unless you are doing more than 86 (when the limit is 70). 

Therefore, you could realistically drive at 55mph during an average speed camera zone and you wouldn't be penalised.[/QUOTE]

I was pulled over the other day for doing 93mph. 3 points and Â£100 fine. The traffic officers told me, they and most colleagues ignore anything up to 85 as long as conditions and way your doing it are safe.


----------



## londonlewis (Nov 24, 2013)

NST said:



			For mobile speed cameras (e.g. police vehicles in a car on the motorway) I have heard they will typically not pull you over unless you are doing more than 86 (when the limit is 70). 

Therefore, you could realistically drive at 55mph during an average speed camera zone and you wouldn't be penalised.
		
Click to expand...

I was pulled over the other day for doing 93mph. 3 points and Â£100 fine. The traffic officers told me, they and most colleagues ignore anything up to 85 as long as conditions and way your doing it are safe.[/QUOTE]


Glad you are here to back me up on my original comment


----------

