Average speed cameras on m25

[Foxholer]

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

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

 

[Doon frae Troon]

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]

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]

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).

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.

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.

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]

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

 

[londonlewis]

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.

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]

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]

Your posts, my bolding;

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?).

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

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

I understand entirely that statistics are used to mislead.

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.

I don’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!

I’d like to delve more into your two made up countries.

I’ll take the whole of this point first.

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?

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.

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.

There are two things I don’t like about this statement.
Firstly, we are not talking about ‘accidents’ and ‘casualties’, we are talking about fatalities.
So let me get this right. These people have become so rich that they not only don’t value their possessions but they don’t even value their own lives?
Let’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 don’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...

I’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.

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.

Yes, I still trust my statistics. I chose them.
I wasn’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.

Lies, damned lies & statistics ring a bell?

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 don’t believe that you can truly argue against this without providing any form of hard facts or evidence and therefore statistics.


Thanks again Blue – 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]

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]

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 £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]

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.

I was pulled over the other day for doing 93mph. 3 points and £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