“Speeding should be every bit as unacceptable as drink driving,” argues police and crime commissioner

Wait - If you come back the next year and find the 85th percentile speed has gone up, you have to raise the limit, right? Does it hold for motorways? Can we apply the same idea to parking offenses?

I'm certainly for recognising the limits of the police and that humans are humans. A *much* better way is to make the road signal / limit the speed itself (eg. wide and straight with sweeping turns - people *will* go faster).

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bglWCuCMSWc

However - where we are right now speeding *is* socially acceptable and in part it's that we've done so much for driving and drivers while having minimal enforcement. We are in practice training people that is fine. So sadly if we want people to drive more safely it's going to mean some (externally imposed) discipline...

chrisonatrike wrote:

A *much* better way is to make the road signal / limit the speed itself (eg. wide and straight with sweeping turns - people *will* go faster).

I'm so dubious of this working here. Come and stay with me for a week and I can show you how people drive on narrow, winding, blind single-track when they have each door-mirror in a different hedge.

*bang* *crash* "what d'ya mean? I din' do nuffin' wrong, it's signposted as 60! Why was you even there?!"

Just not enough people and not enough "feedback" *.  Plenty of "local places" where the norm is ... quite different.

Is it the countryside?  Our centralising tendencies - dating from well before the motor vehicle - mean people there "have to drive" and increasingly far.  Motor vehicles definitely accellerated centralisation (and the expectation of what people "must" have).

A "bit of speeding" is acceptable in places more full of people where you don't even have to go far for amenties.  So is it more or less likely people will go hog-wild on the fringes?

More people - then even if those also followed the local pattern speeding would soon stop anyway because you'd often be sat waiting for the local farmer to tow away the blazing wrecks.

* There are limits to this, I grant.  I've seen a road in Scotland were there are multiple "wayside shrines" in a couple of miles to people who lost it there.  But the jobs and the shops (and the bars...) were at one end and the villages (and some young people) were at the other...

ajuk.uk [at] gmail.com wrote:

If you want to make speeding less socially acceptable you set the limit using the 85th percentile method.
It's bizarre that people claim to want to make speeding less socially acceptable while simultaneously advocating for limits to be set at levels that help make speeding more normal and socially acceptable.

The goal is not to make speeding less acceptable. The goal is to make vehicle traffic travel at a safe speed. The 85th percentile method does not achieve that goal.

ajuk.uk [at] gmail.com wrote:

If you want to make speeding less socially acceptable you set the limit using the 85th percentile method.
It's bizarre that people claim to want to make speeding less socially acceptable while simultaneously advocating for limits to be set at levels that help make speeding more normal and socially acceptable.

I think you’re somewhat missing the point. Speeding being socially acceptable isn’t the core issue – safety is, and speeding being viewed as socially acceptable is one of the things stopping us from tackling it. Raising the speed limits so that nobody is technically speeding anymore doesn’t achieve anything (it’ll probably make the roads less safe because then everyone will be doing 110% of the new limit).

Cars have gotten heavier and have gained more kinetic potential over the last 70 years, and people driving them have not evolved to have greater reaction times in the same period either, so speed limits should be set against pedestrian levels and pedestrian survivability rates when hit by a 2.5 tonne twat-panzer travelling at those speeds. In most cases, this means lowering them.

This is the urban myth that keeps coming up, people don't judge their speed by speed limits, or drive slightly under or over them, it's more down to the road's design.
Some of the more generous speed limits I've seen have compliance rates over 98%, compared to fewer than 1% compliance with some 20 limits.
This is the level it's at, I've even seen data showing me that there are urban roads with 40mph limits with lower average speeds than some roads with 20 limits, this is the extent to which it's not speed limits that dictate traffic speeds.

ajuk.uk [at] gmail.com wrote:

This is the urban myth that keeps coming up, people don't judge their speed by speed limits, or drive slightly under or over them, it's more down to the road's design.
Some of the more generous speed limits I've seen have compliance rates over 98%, compared to fewer than 1% compliance with some 20 limits.
This is the level it's at, I've even seen data showing me that there are urban roads with 40mph limits with lower average speeds than some roads with 20 limits, this is the extent to which it's not speed limits that dictate traffic speeds.

Maybe there should be a minor road re-design after each collision in order to reduce the traffic speeds. Something like a chicane, or speed bump though that could be interesting on motorways.

Blimey - you rushed back a year later!

You keep asserting this, but it's clearly not "an urban myth" is it*?

I think a fair description of the interaction between people, road design and speed limits would be "it's complex".

Anyway, console yourself that stuff like changing limits probably makes people feel "something is being done" while we wait for the best solution (which I agree with you on) - road redesign.  Or even a 2nd class "fix" like "police it better".  I remain hopeful but (the seriously large sums of) money for either are no nearer appearing in policies or manifestos...

I hope I've not got you wrong - for example perhaps you're happy with the (higher limit / speed) status quo, or maybe even "take the nannying limits away and let people work it out for themselves"?

* "Urban myth" = either complete BS, a fairy tale, never happened or something which is wildly exaggerated.  In several parts of the UK (Edinburgh, Wales etc.) there is large-scale hard evidence - the numbers changed, the average speeds decreased.  They didn't all become exactly that number - but then they weren't before ("30" didn't mean "30 or below").

My opinion on this has been formed by the amount of data I've seen on the relationship between speeds and speed limits.

Back in 2014, I sent a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to see how much faster speeds would be on a local 40mph limit road, assuming they would be faster, only to find that the road had lower average speeds than many roads with 30mph limits. Subsequently, I have encountered a lot of data that shows the disconnect between limits and actual speeds. I later discovered that the Department for Transport (DfT) found that when they introduced 40mph limits, most roads experienced either no change in speed or a slight drop. Yet, the myth of people driving 5 or 10mph over the limit persists.
This isn't an argument for 40 limits on all roads, I'm stating that limits need to match the road standard.

Recently, I came across a rather generous 50mph limit road in Corsham with the same average speed as a road with a 20mph limit in Wales where non-compliance levels are extreme.

While there is evidence that lowering limits can be effective on roads that naturally support lower speeds, setting unrealistic speed limits on roads not designed for them can make the road more dangerous. When you have over 90% non-compliance, who does that target what does that do? It's the Golem effect bringing the law into contempt.

You don't want people to feel that something is being done; lowering speed limits only makes it harder for the police to focus on those most likely to cause harm and gives vulnerable people a false indication of actual traffic speeds.

NotJustBikes came out with a new video just for you!

"Unrealistic speed limits ... roads not designed for them".  What realistic speed limits were most roads designed for?  (Hint - your answer may need to refer to horses, carts etc...)

The problem is often one of development - what was a minor road may effectively become an important artery as urban areas grow, but at some point the urban area expands around it.  In the UK we've allowed roads to become "mixed function" eg. it's a distributor (should pass through-traffic efficiently) but also a "place" (people stopping and starting, people walking / crossing often etc).  That causes it to be poor at either function.  Of course it is also more difficult to sort out by this point...

Anyway - it seems your main worry is this thing called "bringing the law into contempt".  I would suggest there's no need to worry: that horse bolted long ago with respect to speed in many environments (motorways, residential areas) (previous government evidence).  And pavement driving.  And driving to the conditions...

Some roads will be modern and designed for a 30mph limit, while others may have been built wider because they used to have trams run along them, etc. Side note: horses and carts used to kill way more people than cars do now.

Most drivers tend to take safety seriously and have an aversion to crashing and running people over. If they feel it's safe to exceed the limit, they'll often default to that speed naturally. If the road is wide and there's a greater line of sight ahead, they'll naturally go faster. If speeds are too high relative to the limit, either the speed limit is wrong, or the design of the road is.
Speed limits are meant to single out those who don't take safety seriously, if almost everyone is speeding, it can't function in that regaurd. People don't take the limits seriously anymore, when they should be.

I've seen that video; it seems to contradict his previous video about speed limits, where he even accidentally found himself speeding.
The problem with both videos is that he didn't really address what to do if you don't have the funds to change the design of the road in line with changes to the limit. He goes on more about actual traffic speeds, rather than speed limits, that's why it's also important that on roads where speeds are faster pedestrians are told to expect the road to be faster.

The horse hasn't bolted, though. Where I've found speed limits that are unusually high, all I've found from a FOI request is that the compliance is unusually high.

I am saying that limits should be seen as a maximum speed meant to single out reckless drivers. They're not traffic calming; they're increasingly being set as if that were the case. For the difference they can make to actual traffic speeds, they're most effective when they match the road they're on.

ajuk.uk [at] gmail.com wrote:

My opinion on this has been formed by the amount of data I've seen on the relationship between speeds and speed limits.[...]I later discovered that the Department for Transport (DfT) found that when they introduced 40mph limits, most roads experienced either no change in speed or a slight drop. Yet, the myth of people driving 5 or 10mph over the limit persists

Myth?  er... some data for you?

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-speed-compliance-statis...

uk government wrote:

The percentage of cars exceeding the speed limit by over 10mph on 30mph roads was 5%, whilst 1% and 8% exceeded the speed limit by more than 10mph on NSL single carriageway roads and motorways respectively.

It's a mixed picture - interesting that NSL single-carriageway roads the median appears somewhat lower.  I'd suggest that is "design speed" in that many of these are rural and winding thus not designed for 60mph!  (and sometimes limited by slower vehicles eg. farm machinery?) That's a guess though.

What is also of note is that of course journeys in urban areas often have a low average speed overall - because of all the time spent stationary, waiting at lights or junctions for other traffic.

Where does that contradict what I'm saying? The 50% non-compliance figure for 30mph roads would be for main roads, not side streets. Trying to do 30mph down a narrow side street is scary. Most of that 50% won't be going much over 30mph and below the enforcement threshold.

The nugget of truth to the idea of setting limits slightly below the engineering recommendations is that it may lead to safer roads and fewer accidents. It isn't the case that 30mph works just because people got used to it; rather, it's because it's the speed sensible drivers won't exceed at least by much in the absence of a speed limit. Seeing that study caused me to change my mind on the issue BTW, previously I would have said use the 85th percentile speed. I also think that study shows why a 25mph limit option might be helpful in the UK.

What I'd say about national speed limit (NSL) roads is that it's more a symbol than just a number for a reason. They turned a NSL road into a "40 zone" near me in Nailsea, a road I often cycle along, and I complained about it. 40mph is not achievable on that road; it's difficult to get much above 30mph, and I've tried. It was the council's absurd approach to help "deal with speeding".
However, I think it's better to have derestricted symbols rather than signs telling people they can try to do 40.
Ireland introduced a rural speed limit sign a few years ago for that reason. There's a reason why we use symbols for lanes and why we have reckless and careless driving laws. I think a better idea would be the introduction of a rural speed limit sign in the uk, just for the lanes that used the same symbol with 'GO SLOW' written beneath it.

Interesting this thread popped up.

I was on the A1120 yesterday with variable limits on section went from 50 to 30 but no change in the layout - still wide and fairly straight.

I think the 30 was for a right turn to a retail area.

ajuk.uk [at] gmail.com wrote:

If you want to make speeding less socially acceptable you set the limit using the 85th percentile method.
It's bizarre that people claim to want to make speeding less socially acceptable while simultaneously advocating for limits to be set at levels that help make speeding more normal and socially acceptable.

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/7/24/understanding-the-85th-per...

This!  And don't forget the "How to address chronic speeding" is combined with another "standard engineering approach" diagram:

 * Is there congestion (are vehicles "moving too slowly")? -> widen the road, straighten it, add lanes, build a relief road...

So in this case he actually got four charges because it went on each speed camera he was caught on.  He's still saying this isn't fair because "it was a journey".

I can hear the young lawyers cracking their knuckles.  Let's see - you can only be charged with speeding when you go over the limit - that's fair.  So as long as you never drop below 80, you could carry on as long as your fuel tank lasts and it's only one charge.

It's logical, otherwise if you stole a tanker full of petrol you could be separately charged with thousands of counts of stealing a litre of fuel, plus the tanker itself, the furry dice and the contents of the glove compartment...

In David9694's example the red lights and squashed pensioners now, they'd appear separable so you might have to plead to running through (or over) more than one.  Maybe you could then ask for the rest to be taken into consideration?  It better be a meaningful "journey" and not "established" red lights though - as a cyclist you're already under suspicion on both counts there!

As you can see I'm not a lawyer.  Maybe it's one to add to the review of road law that must be happening real soon now?

But if I tell you that the sun was in my eyes and that none of the pensioners was wearing hi viz?

I also had a medical episode and my one year old was messing with my 'phone.

He says he was clocked at 50 by the first camera and then slowed to 39. Two questions.

Why did he get a speed awareness course for 50 in a 30?

Why did he think the speed limit was 40. It is crucial to the decision.  Street lights and no sign mean 30mph. He obviously didn't see a 40 sign as one wouldn't exist so why assume 40?

It was a magistrates court and he represented himself. He says he convinced the magistrates to use common sense. From what I've read it seems to me that magistrates and gulliblity go hand in hand.

Yeah interesting on the 50 / 30 thing. Maybe 51mph was required to trigger a higher charge? Seems very lenient. 

As I've already mentioned, Plymouth has recently installed average speed cameras along a number of routes, mainly to distract rat running. On this road, its related to the development of Sherford and I assume minimising / mitgating against, the increase of traffic through Plympton the development has generated. Much of this road is four lane, and will be very quiet outside commuting hours. Crucially I understand that it used to have a 40mph limit. 

Whilst not justifying it, I can appreciate how easy it would be to assume the historic limit would still be in effect. However, I'm sure there is a saying about assuming things.... 

That makes a bit more sense then. Thanks.

I think your anology is not a direct comparison, its more that you jumped one set of lights, and there were 27 cameras to capture the moment, with each camera issuing you a ticket. 

I personally think the magistrates were right in doing what they did. To lose your licence due to an accumlation of points demonstrates an inability to change behaviour / respect the law. It irks me something rotten that serial offenders are allowed to us the 'hardship' excuse to avoid a ban, when they have had ample warnings and opportunities to make amends. 

In this case however, the driver has not been given that opportunity. 

The chap rightfully needs punishing, but I don't believe the offence merits taking this motorist off the road. 

6 points and a chunky fine seems appropriate to me. 

I think it sends the wrong message. Drivers are constantly dissing, evading and even vandalising any attempt at speed enforcement.

EDIT  Everything is negotiable - that's what I take from it, all helped by the Magistrates thinking "that could be me".  

would the position be any different if he had've dropped below the limit and then over it (let's assume his speed is monitored on a constant basis - wouldn't that be nice) or is it more just that he passed each monitoring point/through each monitored zone at excess speed?

I think a lot of upset pensioners around me would want to know that. 

I am on board with you around the contempt many motorist show towards speed limits and enforcement. 

However, I look at it positively that magistrates will review a situation with a  wider perspective, and regulate punishment as they deem appropriate. 

In this instance, rather than 'that could be me', I'd say the thinking was more likely; 'do I believe this person's account? is this a genuine mistake that could be made by an otherwise law abiding citzien? is the potential punishment appropriate to the offence?' 

Not sure what you mean by the varying speed comment. Personally a consistent speed would be more suggestive that the driver was driving to an incorrect understanding of speed limits, rather than actively recklessly, so arguably better? 

What are you doing to your local pensioners to upset them? 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

 

What are you doing to your local pensioners to upset them? 

 

I think that was just a pastiche of recent driver excuses.

How long has to elapse between offences for a new one to start? 15 minutes, an hour, a day?

If you drove through a 1 mile 30 mph limit at 40 mph but were caught on cameras at every quarter mile, how many speeding offences? If you dropped below 30 for a bit 4 times and went over again each time, would the answer be any different? 

In central London I could cycle through 27 red traffic lights in close succession - how close, or how long between each one for it to be 27 or 1 or something in between? Maybe if I did it in two batches like our friend? 

Remember: what ever inch you give drivers, they will be back for a mile before you know it. 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

I think your anology is not a direct comparison, its more that you jumped one set of lights, and there were 27 cameras to capture the moment, with each camera issuing you a ticket. 

With respect, I don't think that's a terribly good analogy either, given that the offences were committed over a fourteen minute period (and presumably a considerable distance, given the speed) and the driver himself admits that the limits were well signposted; it's more as though someone jumped a red light which had a big sign on it saying that there was a camera to catch them and then went back and did it three more times.

The road is only a couple of miles long, so I'm guessing the 14mins will reflect an out and back journey as he stated he was dropping something off. 

My understanding was that the driver admitted that the signage was there to be seen, its just that, having previously driven that road many times, he didn't look for them. His assumption being that the speed limits hadn't changed since his last visitation. They had.  

Again, my view is that to take this person's licence for failing to note one change of speed limit, on a single stretch of road, is excessive. 

I'd like to think that he will have learnt a lesson from this, and should at least be given a chance to demonstrate that.