Speed cameras

[vanessan]

I fully agree with MM re speed limits outside schools. In South Australia they have a reduced limit on roads passing schools 'when children present' and that seems to work extremely well.

In Strowager's words, fate and circumstances conspire. If they can, by golly they will too!

[Wildfuzz]

How about different colored road surface for different speed limits.......  Black for national, red for thirty, yellow for 20 etc etc. I know expensive but a visual reminder of the limit..... Oh if the budget was limitless......

[ranworthbreeze]

2 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

I think one reality is that some of the speed limits are as inappropriate as the speeds some motorists think to be OK.

If I were to have any say in the matter, I would have 20mph outside every school, with 30mph for 200 yards (metres if you prefer) before the 20 limits. Both those speed limits to be "defended" by speed cameras. Those speed cameras would be switched off at 8pm and turned on again at 7am.

All other speed limits should have a 10 year review to see if they're appropriate. Frequently what will happen is that a speed limit is reduced AND speed cameras are introduced in the same place (usually after a few accidents have occured at that place.) where only one OR the other is really necessary. This frequently results in inappropriate speed limits existing.

 

Hi MM,

I agree with the lower speed limit at schools, but with regards to overall safety to the children would be better if schools opened up their car parks for the use of parents to collect and drop off children.

What we have at the moment is roads leading to the schools with cars parked on both sides of the roads or pavements, junctions where you can not see because of illegal parking, the end result will be children will be maimed or killed no matter what the posted speed is.

I am sure many of you will see this every day of school terms, if you live anywhere near to a school.

Regards

Alan

[BroadScot]

Err, maybe I am missing something here, but outside our schools where I live, when its time for the little darlings to go or leave, we have flashing warning lights with a 20mph speed limit in force.

Iain

 

[Poppy]

Alan,

We have exactly this problem in our village. Yummy mummies insist on parking as near to the School gates as possible - and to hell with anybody who is inconvenienced - let alone the risks and danger posed to the children by their selfishness, for that is precisely what it is . Especially so when the Local Supermarket has let it be known that they are welcome to use their car park  - a mere 250 yards from the school . 

I once asked one of these 'ladies' why they didn't use this fee facility when dropping off her child. " I can't waste time walking all that way" she replied, " I've got to get to the gym".  The irony of her reply escaped her.....

 

[Poppy]

....and she wasn't even blond Gracie 

[vanessan]

Iain - a google search tells me that the Scottish Executive provided funding between 2003 and 2006 for 20 mph limits outside all schools. An example of Scotland being ahead of the game and one England should be following I think.

[Gracie]

I don't blame you for being angry at yummy mummies for doing what you describe Pops, it also makes me angry, I know of at least two mums that drive their kids to school in just five minutes ( a ten minute walk) then have the cheek to moan there's nowhere to park I have always, when I am able, walked my kids the fifteen minutes to school, good for them, good for me. When I am also able to go to the gym with my girlfriends to be as healthy as we can, we then pop along to the wine bar opposite for an hour or two, good for working the old arm muscles

Grace

p.s I am NOT responsible for going off topic this time, Peskies, thank you  

[BroadScot]

4 minutes ago, Gracie said:

p.s I am NOT responsible for going off topic this time, Peskies, thank you  

Noted! As if you would EVER go off topic Grace

Iain

[TheQ]

1 hour ago, ranworthbreeze said:

Hi MM,

I agree with the lower speed limit at schools, but with regards to overall safety to the children would be better if schools opened up their car parks for the use of parents to collect and drop off children.

What we have at the moment is roads leading to the schools with cars parked on both sides of the roads or pavements, junctions where you can not see because of illegal parking, the end result will be children will be maimed or killed no matter what the posted speed is.

I am sure many of you will see this every day of school terms, if you live anywhere near to a school.

Regards

Alan

What school car park would this be? I know of no school car park that is big enough to take anything other than the teachers cars, and most of those are hived of bits of the tarmac school playing field. leaving less room for the children to play when the ground is soggy.. 

I pass several schools on the way home from work and  they are 20 mph limits anyway. Except the Broadland High  which is on a major through road  and Stalham which is on a through road at 30MPH

[Guest]

Something that the Americans have got right, (for a change), IMHO.........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_bus_traffic_stop_laws

True, only for their school buses, rather than cars dropping kids off, but why don't we do it that way too ?

 

 

[Poppy]

We do have rules, enforceable by law here. Unfortunately frequently Ignored by the selfish, who can also subsequently be seen speeding having picked up their little darlings !

[unclemike]

having looked at the web, there are 8 average speed cameras between long sutton and west lynn, average speed 60 MPH, if they get you its your own fault the limit is 60, lost count of the number of times i've been passd,(i use C.C. all the time,  wouldnt be without it, if it uses more fuel so be it, still cheaper than speeding fines, and i do 1000M a month just to get to a workplace)

[ian141]

On 29/02/2016 at 8:40 AM, Poppy said:

If more people were to learn how to senibly use their cruise control this would occur less often. The reluctance (at best) of may to do so surprises me.

In my view this debate encompasses a typical attitude, sadly all  too prevalent in this country - ' I know what's best, and I won't be told otherwise by anybody else' !   Evidence matters not to this type of person.

Perhaps it's an '80's ' thing......

Hmmm. 

 

I'm not sure cruise control is always appropriate. It depends on the level of traffic as to whether it's a good thing to be using.

Not to mention the fact that thousands of cars do not have cruise control.....

I agree with the second part of the statement, though it applies equally to both sides of the argument.... 

'I know 30mph is safe on this road' (even when, perhaps, it isn't)

 

 

[TheQ]

I've had 18 vehicles in my life, none have had cruise control other than my right foot...

[Bound2Please]

Well I will add that SPEED COULD KILL yesterday on the A12 as I was doing about 40mph as the conditions were NOT safe enough for faster as visibility through the torrential rain and spray was at about 60-70 yards max. There were idiots probably using cruise control set at 70mph going past like the lunatics they are. Fortunately no accidents that know of occurred. In the CONDITIONS YESTERDAY SPEED COULD KILL

But under normal driving conditions using what one was born with SPEED DOESNT KILL

But also as Ian141 said, people keep to the 30mph limit even when its not safe to ... If I had my way all people parked within 500yds of a school at start time or finish time should be ticketed and 3 points put onto their licences. Also that the speed limit for those 500Yards either side of school should be 15mph... there are other places as well that this should be used in the area of care homes for one springs to mind.

I WILL REPEAT SPEED DOES NOT KILL IF USED CORRECTLY AND APPROPRIATELY

Charlie off his soap box

[Viking23]

On 26 February 2016 at 1:16 PM, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

Not many people use them because contrary to what a lot of people believe, "cruise control" systems actually INCREASE fuel consumption.  I found this out when i drove from here (East Dorset) to Brundall to pick up Lightning. I set the cruise control as soon as we got on to the non stop A31 dualcarraigeway, and only switched it off for services etc, BUT did`nt use it on the return journey. The journey up, saw an average 43 mpg, whereas the return journey WITHOUT it, saw 51 mpg. I`ve not used it since.

Even without cruise control, you can notice a huge difference in MPG depending on the strength and direction of the wind.

On the way down to Norfolk at the weekend we were facing a strong headwind, but a few days later the wind was behind us, and we noticed an improvement on the return journey of nearly 10 mpg.

So it's unfair to say that cruise control alone can make this difference.

I do agree that cruise control does use more fuel, especially on inclines where say I would allow the car to slow down, as the cruise control would labour the engine to maintain a constant speed. On downward slopes, I would allow the car to gain speed ready for the next incline, whereas, the cruise control would hold the car back.

Where cruise control helps is when you want to give your right leg some exercise, sitting in one position for two hours, isn't good for you.

Mind you, in the USA I saw one guy who was driving an SUV took this to the extreme and had both feet out of the driver's window. 

[RumPunch]

1 hour ago, TheQ said:

I've had 18 vehicles in my life, none have had cruise control other than my right foot...

Added it to the wife's Astra after she snapped her indicator stalk. She refuses to use it..........

[senator]

a

[senator]

On 2/26/2016 at 3:47 PM, Labrador said:

So you agree with speeding in the right place? Where pray is the right place? Speed limits aren't there for the hell of it.

Speed does kill FACT, in any accident, the higher the speed the more likelihood of a fatality, FACT.

Average plane journey cruises at 500 mph, average deaths on a flight 0 "FACT" If the plane drops its speed to 50 mph the death rate soars "FACT"

Most speed limits in this country hark back to the 30's with motorway limits from the 60's. Cars have changed beyond comparison since those days, have a look at the braking distances in the highway code, once the reaction distance is removed you will find you need less than half the allocated distance to stop in a modern car. Suspension, tyres even steering have all improved phenomenally yet the speed limits are the same or lower.

Yes traffic has increased and there are places that current speed limits are fully justified but move to a lightly trafficed situation with minimal risk of  encountering pedestrians and they are massively outdated.

[BroadScot]

10 minutes ago, senator said:

they are massively outdated.

Absolutely!

[BroadScot]

As my driving instructor said the day I passed my test,(1967) you now have a licence to kill and maim. Treat all roads with the respect they deserve.

Iain.

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, senator said:

Most speed limits in this country hark back to the 30's with motorway limits from the 60's. Cars have changed beyond comparison since those days, have a look at the braking distances in the highway code, once the reaction distance is removed you will find you need less than half the allocated distance to stop in a modern car.

I quite agree that many signed speed limits are totally illogical.

On a journey along the length of the A140 you find yourself jumping between 30, 40, 50 and 60, with no standardization to risk factor. It becomes impossible to guesstimate what the logical speed limit is. You frantically keep looking out for the small repeater signs to make sure you're not going to get a ticket in case you missed a change.

On the other hand, in rural areas like Norfolk, a lot of roads through villages have very narrow pavements, and yet the speed limit is still 40mph, rather than 30.

Also, twisty country lanes (even some A roads) are often completely without footpaths or walkable verges,and yet most of those have just the maximum single carriageway limit, 60 mph !!     Much of the A1151 between Wroxham and Norwich for example.

Cars handling and road handling have indeed improved enormously over the years, but the nut behind the wheel often hasn't.

There is disagreement on this thread over the phrase "speed kills" because the meaning is being taken quite differently by the various posters.

Yes, bad driving at the speed limit is going to be more dangerous than very good driving at 10 mph more, but the point some people are trying to make (like me) is that the higher the speed at impact, the greater the injury or chances of death.

That has to be undeniably true for anyone surely ?  The faster you hit a human body, the more damage you are going to cause.  The difference is not linear either, fatal injuries rise exponentially with each mph above 20.

[RumPunch]

Another angle on this, there are probably more drivers at either end of the ability / age range than ever before. At either end you will probably not drive as well as someone in say there 30's or 40's ( assuming they passed at 20 and drive frequently )

Is the need for lowered speed limits due to these groups ? If so then is it fair that everyone is treated equal ? Mandatory reviews ( not retest ) including medical for the older driver, possibly restrictions / black boxes on the younger

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, RumPunch said:

Is the need for lowered speed limits due to these groups ? If so then is it fair that everyone is treated equal ?

How could this be policed ?

Who would have the power to say that one driver is "better" than another ?

How much would it cost ?

If the risk factor is calculated in a similar way to insurance premiums (from actual accident statistics), then the most "at risk" would be high powered performance cars.

Mandatory lower speed limits for them would go down well !

(As I legally breeze past a Porsche in my cr**py old "crinkly" car...)