Un marked Camera vans

[marchie]

Yes prob but you have the choise, i do agree on speeders being stopped or a fine, but what i do find is some roads have silly restrictions, either to fast or too slow, or a silly change within 50 yards, one here is 40 then 50 and 30 all within 100 yards.

I'll see your silly speed limit and doublr it, Trev ... 20mph then striaght to 50mph [on steep short ascent], and 20mph to 40mph on the descent at the other end. But, this is Fife, which stands for flaming idiots flaming everywhere [other f words are available]

If people drive in accordance with the speed limit, there should be no risk, so your example of the lorry driver about to cut you up shouldn't occur, because he or she would be driving without due care and attention

And I have been cut up by bikers tear-arsing through 30mph and then forcing their way into a nn-existent gap more times than I can recall. And when one ends up in the mortuary because he was riding like an onanist until his/her luck ran out, I feel nothing. And I am ex-biker who rode within the limits because I quite like the way my creator arranged my legs, arms and head, and it's not fair on the surgeons to present them with a jigsaw puzzle without a picture and expect them to get it perfectly right ...

Steve

 

[trevskoda]

I'll see your silly speed limit and doublr it, Trev ... 20mph then striaght to 50mph [on steep short ascent], and 20mph to 40mph on the descent at the other end. But, this is Fife, which stands for flaming idiots flaming everywhere [other f words are available]

If people drive in accordance with the speed limit, there should be no risk, so your example of the lorry driver about to cut you up shouldn't occur, because he or she would be driving without due care and attention

And I have been cut up by bikers tear-arsing through 30mph and then forcing their way into a nn-existent gap more times than I can recall. And when one ends up in the mortuary because he was riding like an onanist until his/her luck ran out, I feel nothing. And I am ex-biker who rode within the limits because I quite like the way my creator arranged my legs, arms and head, and it's not fair on the surgeons to present them with a jigsaw puzzle without a picture and expect them to get it perfectly right ...

Steve

Yes some nutters here to on bikes, esp in Belfast town, very dangerus place at the best of times, city centres should be 20mph all through, the worst offenders here to be truthfull are the cycle riders who think traffic lights crossings and one way streets dont apply to them, gets my monkey up.

 

[marchie]

Yes some nutters here to on bikes, esp in Belfast town, very dangerus place at the best of times, city centres should be 20mph all through, the worst offenders here to be truthfull are the cycle riders who think traffic lights crossings and one way streets dont apply to them, gets my monkey up.

As do the cyclists who cycle at speed on the footpath, covered in mud from trail riding, ignoring pedestrian priority, because 'it's not safe to ride on the road' [where the surface must be covered in boulders, sandy gulleys, protruding plants and small trees, and streams ....].

Steve

 

[Rolyan57]

That’s what pisses me off Rob, 4mph over a 60mph limit and not offered a course.

That’s very poor. They normally allow 10% + 2mph, just to avoid unnecessary prosecution of those that make simple and innocent mistakes and are no real danger. To be done for 64 in a 60 is really unlucky and doesn’t really contribute to road safety.

 

[Rolyan57]

Very common in Spain. Difficult to keep within the limits .
I see some of the speed restrictions in Wales have been reviewed. But also the numbers of people killed or injured has dropped quite considerably

It’s very difficult to get true and accurate data to be honest, and it’s not been on long enough to determine if it’s made a significant impact. The drop in KSI following the introduction is as likely the result of driver awareness due to the recent change, rather than the effectiveness of 20 as a figure.

Most statisticians I know roll their eyes and shakes their heads disparagingly at some of the interpretations of the data, mainly by politicians and media.

 

[alcam]

It’s very difficult to get true and accurate data to be honest, and it’s not been on long enough to determine if it’s made a significant impact. The drop in KSI following the introduction is as likely the result of driver awareness due to the recent change, rather than the effectiveness of 20 as a figure.

Most statisticians I know roll their eyes and shakes their heads disparagingly at some of the interpretations of the data, mainly by politicians and media.

To be fair the politician(s) involved in the 20mph programme were very upfront that it was early days . They advised that 3 years would give a more accurate picture .
Obviously the present figures are extremely encouraging wouldn't you say ?

 

[trevskoda]

That’s very poor. They normally allow 10% + 2mph, just to avoid unnecessary prosecution of those that make simple and innocent mistakes and are no real danger. To be done for 64 in a 60 is really unlucky and doesn’t really contribute to road safety.

1 mph here and its a course, after nine over limit its automatic 3 p points, higher than that its court and removal or licence.

 

[mark61]

1 mph here and its a course, after nine over limit its automatic 3 p points, higher than that its court and removal or licence.

Too right!

I'm with Trev, ban them all.

 

[Robmac]

1 mph here and its a course, after nine over limit its automatic 3 p points, higher than that its court and removal or licence.

That must be local to you Trev as NI have very similar guidelines to the rest of the UK;

For the speed awareness course, the speed of the offence must fall within the criteria stated below:

• 30 mph up to and including 42 mph
• 40 mph up to and including 53 mph
• 50 mph up to and including 64 mph
• 60 mph up to and including 75 mph
• 70 mph up to and including 86 mph

 

[Rolyan57]

To be fair the politician(s) involved in the 20mph programme were very upfront that it was early days . They advised that 3 years would give a more accurate picture .
Obviously the present figures are extremely encouraging wouldn't you say ?

I’m not sure that ‘encouraging’ is the right word.

Statistically, what’s the basis for 3 years giving a more accurate figure? I suspect somebody has pulled that period out of thin air.

Where’s the statistical analysis of the rate of change in specific hotspot areas?

Where’s the analysis of the cause and effect? What’s the root cause? Is it long term?

Don’t get me wrong, any reduction in KSI is welcome. However, I don’t agree that “any reduction in KSI” is worth “any change”. I also think that unless we understand the root cause, at micro level, benefits can’t be sustained or even proven. But councillors and politicians prefer macro, as its easier to show improvements.

 

[Rolyan57]

That must be local to you Trev as NI have very similar guidelines to the rest of the UK;

For the speed awareness course, the speed of the offence must fall within the criteria stated below:

• 30 mph up to and including 42 mph
• 40 mph up to and including 53 mph
• 50 mph up to and including 64 mph
• 60 mph up to and including 75 mph
• 70 mph up to and including 86 mph

Interestingly (as not everybody knows) those are the maximum permitted speeds for a course, after which it’s simply prosecution. But (and here’s the biggie) there’s no legal entitlement to one; offering a course (below the maximum speeds shown above) is at the discretion of the police. They can catch you doing 33 in a 30 and prosecute.

 

[alcam]

I’m not sure that ‘encouraging’ is the right word.

Statistically, what’s the basis for 3 years giving a more accurate figure? I suspect somebody has pulled that period out of thin air.

Where’s the statistical analysis of the rate of change in specific hotspot areas?

Where’s the analysis of the cause and effect? What’s the root cause? Is it long term?

Don’t get me wrong, any reduction in KSI is welcome. However, I don’t agree that “any reduction in KSI” is worth “any change”. I also think that unless we understand the root cause, at micro level, benefits can’t be sustained or even proven. But councillors and politicians prefer macro, as its easier to show improvements.

Read an article about it . Didn't go quite as tonto as yourself re statistical analysis
Obviously 3 years figures give a more accurate picture than 1 year . Don't think you'd have to be a qualified statistician to know that . But , again , the word of caution did come from a politician involved in the scheme .
Less people killed or injured is encouraging to me .
Don't frankly give a sheeit if it inconveniences me and others .

 

[Rolyan57]

Read an article about it . Didn't go quite as tonto as yourself re statistical analysis
Obviously 3 years figures give a more accurate picture than 1 year . Don't think you'd have to be a qualified statistician to know that . But , again , the word of caution did come from a politician involved in the scheme .
Less people killed or injured is encouraging to me .
Don't frankly give a sheeit if it inconveniences me and others .

You said “3 years gives a more accurate picture than 1 year, you don’t have to be a qualified statistician to know that”. Correct, you don’t.

But you have probably do to know how much data you need to get accurate figures that show real change, and the root cause analysis coming from that. Which is important if you’re forcing change and inconvenience on people, even if you as an individual aren’t bothered by any inconvenience.

 

[Pudsey Bear]

My Honda NC750 had a rev limiter Barry which I hated and it would do exactly that, it was like hitting a brick wall mid overtake. However, the safety campaigners would say that you should plan your overtakes more carefully.

I'm sort of playing Devil's advocate here just to demonstrate that the powers that be don't really give a flying one about your safety, they are more interested in cash. I would never want to see such measures introduced.

On our car Rob there is zero direct physical connection between the steering wheel and the wheels or the brakes, it's all electric and computer controlled, and it frigging awful when IT decides what to do based on radar and four cameras.

 

[alcam]

You said “3 years gives a more accurate picture than 1 year, you don’t have to be a qualified statistician to know that”. Correct, you don’t.

But you have probably do to know how much data you need to get accurate figures that show real change, and the root cause analysis coming from that. Which is important if you’re forcing change and inconvenience on people, even if you as an individual aren’t bothered by any inconvenience.

Less killed , injured . Yea only 1 year .
Personally I'll be pleased if that trend continues.
Surely no one should be bothered about the inconvenience?

 

[maingate]

Limits are fine but collisions are usually caused by people who have no respect for the rules of the road and drink (or use drugs) and drive. Younger drivers do not even have to be familiar with the Highway Code, they only need to keep taking the online test until they pass the theory test. It will only be a matter of time until cameras cover the 20 mph zones and drivers are fined to cover the cost of the new breed of traffic camera (which sees everything).

 

[Rolyan57]

Less killed , injured . Yea only 1 year .
Personally I'll be pleased if that trend continues.
Surely no one should be bothered about the inconvenience?

It’s really not as simple as that. A) you need to determine what the rate of change was before. B) in what areas. C) what the root cause is.

Without that there is no evidence of any trend. Data that is lower one year to another is not a trend.

Yes, I believe it’s reasonable to be bothered by inconvenience, unless the benefit is proven to outweigh the inconvenience. It’s often quoted that if you reduce the speed limit to 5mph, you would save lives but hardly anyone would agree to the huge cost and inconvenience. While it’s a slightly fatuous example, it does show that it’s not a simple subject.

Those that state “surely no one minds the inconvenience” already think the reduction works and is a cause of long terms improvements, without necessarily having the data to back it up.

 

[Robmac]

Interestingly (as not everybody knows) those are the maximum permitted speeds for a course, after which it’s simply prosecution. But (and here’s the biggie) there’s no legal entitlement to one; offering a course (below the maximum speeds shown above) is at the discretion of the police. They can catch you doing 33 in a 30 and prosecute.

Yes I know that.

I went on 3 courses in 4 years which is not supposed to be allowed. When I was invited onto the 3rd course I phoned the department and pointed out that I had already been on 2 courses and so shouldn't be entitled to another, the chap said "You are correct but don't worry about it just go on the course".

On the first course I went on they took us out individually in a car around a set route pointing out potential hazards as we drove. Before setting out you had to do an eyesight test (read a number plate at 25 yards) one chap on our course couldn't read the plate and was sent home so he lost the course fee and got fined and 3 points. By rights they shouldn't have let him drive home as driving with faulty vision is an offence in itself.

 

[alcam]

It’s really not as simple as that. A) you need to determine what the rate of change was before. B) in what areas. C) what the root cause is.

Without that there is no evidence of any trend. Data that is lower one year to another is not a trend.

Yes, I believe it’s reasonable to be bothered by inconvenience, unless the benefit is proven to outweigh the inconvenience. It’s often quoted that if you reduce the speed limit to 5mph, you would save lives but hardly anyone would agree to the huge cost and inconvenience. While it’s a slightly fatuous example, it does show that it’s not a simple subject.

Those that state “surely no one minds the inconvenience” already think the reduction works and is a cause of long terms improvements, without necessarily having the data to back it up.

I've covered all of that already.
Your last sentence is simply untrue .
'unless the benefit is proven to outweigh the inconvenience '
That doesn't read well , hopefully you didn't mean it to sound that way

 

[Rolyan57]

I've covered all of that already.
Your last sentence is simply untrue .
'unless the benefit is proven to outweigh the inconvenience '
That doesn't read well , hopefully you didn't mean it to sound that way

Actually no, you haven’t covered all of that.

No, my last sentence is absolutely 100% correct.

If the figures reduce with the introduction of the 20mph limit, there will still be recorded numbers of KSI.

Will you accept those numbers, or will you campaign for further reductions? If you accept the reduced numbers, what makes your level of KSI more acceptable than mine.

I strongly believe that you will accept the level of KSI that a 20mph limit brings. Which means that you are weighing benefits against inconvenience and decided that the new level of KSI is okay for the inconvenience you suffer. Just like everyone else.