OT: Smart Motorways and overly smart cameras?

[T i m]

Go on then, explain 'the difference'. (this should be fun).

Nope. If the road is generally clear and there is a single speed reduction in the middle of that then that slower section *will* cause a level of increased congestion. Simple flow rate models will demonstrate that. This is something even someone as much into denial as you *will* have experienced as you drive slowly though an empty section for no reason will accept.

The optimum speed is the maximum speed (/ throughput) the road can sustain. Now, when I first started driving (and still sometimes today), 70 mph is the fastest we can test. It's a lot faster on many roads around the world. How on earth did you cope before the variable speed limits came onto play?

If I'm driving round a motorway and see the traffic building up again (or many vehicles slowing etc) I check the vehicles around me and am ready to back off. If it's obvious that there *will* be some slowing required I do back off and / or gently brake (1 to slow and 2 to show those behind me I'm braking) and will either match the new general speed if it's still moving or slow / stop etc. What I don't do is pull out into the outer lanes and tear down (under the speed limit) till I run out of road ... or keep undertaking / lane changing, forcing others to have to drop back to maintain their own safe distance.

I'm not sure what your programming considers to be obvious. ;-)

You are right, I don't *every day*, but I have done enough to know how they work and what they are trying to achieve.

1) (Repeat) I'm not moaning about anything (the fact that you think I am says more about you than me), this is a discussion group and I am discussing the concepts around all of it with the human adults. You aren't obliged therefore to join in. ;-)

Keep an eye on your letter box mate.

You are more 'wrong' to break the law (unless indicated to do so by a Police officer) than you would be to do you best within the law to keep out of their way. Do you think if you had caused an accident when doing 90 mph they would have just driven off?

Depending on the circumstances, braking and pulling in *can* be the right thing to do.

Can't remember, it was nearly 40 years ago. Just a slip of paper I think.

Possibly, but even very skilled drivers make mistakes, and it's just these mistakes (going over the speed limit by 1mph) that we are talking about.

Of course I wouldn't because I am a reasonable person (not a left brain robot). If something happened that wasn't down to inappropriate speed at the time, I wouldn't penalise someone for doing 51 in a 50 limit. De Minimis.

Of your statement of 71+ above.

Because of ignoring the potential revenue they can earn, all speed management is *supposed* to be based on the safety implications.

If you think the need to reduce congestion is just to make our driving lives easier, or reduce pollution you are one badly programmed droid.

They are to make better use of the road by making the hard shoulder into a live lane and being able to close to protect a broken down vehicle.

They are used to try to manage congestion and therefore comparative speed (fast moving vehicles ploughing into the back of stationary ones) and therefore safety again. Ignoring the hard shoulder for a second, do you think they would bother with congestion management if they didn't need to therefore try to reduce accidents?

I don't think everyone yet knows about the smart / 'Zero tolerance' cameras that are slowly springing up on motorways round the country or I'm guessing there wouldn't be such a massive increase in those being issued with speeding tickets because of them. After all, we all know there are speeding cameras along most roads these days so that as a concept isn't news to anyone.

I'm not sure what part of the variable speed limits needs understanding?

Yes ... and there are and have been for a long time now *reasonable* limits to what is considered *excess* speed on our roads.

Cameras might reduce excess speed but they rarely reduce inappropriate speed.

Whilst you could, if they are (now) looking at all this as a 'soft target' / 'cash cow' then maybe not.

Quite.

How about this ... so you think the current driving instruction / test really gives most people the skills they need for today's roads?

Do you think that indicating the maximum speed is 40 then penalising someone (with little recourse to appeal / mitigating circumstances without fear of repercussions) for doing 41?

What do you think of the legal concept of De Minimis?

What percentage of people who are driving today are aware how accurate their speedometers are and so what speed they are actually doing at any time? Our old Astra used to be doing just over 27 mph (GPS) on a speedo indication of 30 so if someone was driving at an indicated

27mph to be sure of not triggering a 31mph camera, how many accidents and road rage incidents do you think that will cause?

If they wanted us to all just drive slower (if they are the rules I have no issue with that as I'm not a 'fast driver' in any case), it's just that I'd like to see some qualifiable fact to substantiate that good / sensible drivers cause a disproportionately high number of accidents because of that speed alone. I have no issue understanding that in the event of an accident, more speed often means greater damage but we still have to get from A to B and most would like to do that in the best time possible (whilst staying safe etc). [1]

Cheers, T i m

[1] Having a GPS with an ETA was a very good aid to demonstrate how frantic driving / overtaking rarely improved your journey time by much, or certainly not considering the increased risk (from my POV and with the vehicles I was typically driving). ;-)

[T i m]

Agreed. The irony is much of this / the legislation is put on place to manage a tiny minority yet we can all suffer the consequences of it.

Agreed (not that I generally do. See above etc).

;-)

Agreed, and that fits with say 28 being the speed. Make that 25 (an indicated 28 in a 30 limit etc) and I'm not sure they would be so happy / willing to sit and wait? Not that that should be an issue of course but ITRW it often is.

That was the reason our daughter failed her first driving test and I can remember clearly my driving instructor telling me, especially for the test, to 'accelerate up to the speed limit' (where appropriate etc) to demonstrate good road manners and, recognition of the limits and that you could?

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

Not so easy when you are in a variable speed limit 'zero tolerance' zone on a motorway (at the moment?) and that's changing gantry by gantry? ;-(

And what if as you approach the one that is set slower than all the rest (before and after) and because of that you also have to deal with some 'more important' scenario (from a survival POV, like being cut up or 'pushed' (not physically etc) by a foreign arctic)?

'Of course' and under 'most circumstances', most of us will be able to deal with such things but if whilst we were, we did a hundred yards at

1mph over the limit, would you consider it 'fair, reasonable and proportionate' to receive a fine and 3 points on your licence?

OOI, there are some positive mitigating circumstances re such situations:

"Factors reducing seriousness or reflecting personal mitigation

No previous convictions or no relevant/recent convictions Good character and/or exemplary conduct Genuine emergency established"

The thing is it seems the 'general recommendation' is to just plead guilty and accept the punishment, simply because they are unlikely to care.

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

Yeah, I considered that. ;-)

Whilst speaking to a mate who had recently done the 'Speed awareness' course (and thought it to be pretty good), he suggested that the instructor suggested that if insurance companies ask if you have been done for speeding you answer 'no'. If they ask if you have been on a Speed Awareness course you reply truthfully and whilst some might try to increase your premium, they shouldn't (so go elsewhere) and some have actually reduced the premium as you are now a better informed driver?

Cheers, T i m

[Michael Chare]

What I have noticed is that very few people ignore the average speed cameras. There was a letter in the DT saying that the tolerance on these is very low with someone being prosecuted for doing 54 mph in a 50 limit. I see most vehicles doing about 48 mph, perhaps relying on speedos rather than GPS.

[T i m]

;-(

Cheers, T i m

[Michael Chare]

In that case I am surprised that I have not been caught as I am quite good at ignoring them.

[Jethro_uk]

There was a driver on the SAC I attended who was done for 31 in a 30. This was in 2014.

The instructors on the course gave us all *very* clear warnings of the upcoming changes, and noted that in one way we could consider ourselves fortunate - as we had clear advance notice of what would certainly catch a lot of motorists unaware.

Average speed cameras on A roads, and 20mph zones being two.

[Jethro_uk]

With all the "apps" out there, I have yet to see one that can link a speed limiter to the posted speed limit.

However, there are innumerable apps to help you make a call and send and receive texts while driving.

[T i m]

I think because it's pretty obvious what you are up against, even if you enter the zone a bit fast because of circumstances etc (you find yourself overtaking a lorry and want to complete the manoeuvre before pulling back in and slowing etc).

Which is a reasonable way of enduring there is a bit of slack. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[Jethro_uk]

We were told that insurance companies didn't ask about attending SAC. Two of the attendees immediately disputed that and said that Admiral had specifically asked about SAC.

The instructors were very taken aback - apparently the entire raison d'etre behind the legislation creating SAC was to promote safer driving, not penalise minor infractions.

Of course, this being the UK, who will tackle a rouge insurer ?

(I have no idea if the question was used in rating, but I do know that generally insurers don't ask questions which aren't).

[T i m]

The thing is, they are still quite new and therefore not that prevalent *yet*.

I also think they are also monitoring them for a while before rolling them out over the country (or not etc).

Cheers, T i m

[Jethro_uk]

If we are talking about average cameras, then it's possible that your time *under* the speed limit was a tad longer than your time *over* it ?????

[The Natural Philosopher]

Interesting point. I didn't know you could insure rouge.

[Tim Watts]

Admiral are essentially vogons who are hard and fast about edge cases. Best avoided. I've had experience then and recall a bad story told by someone else here.

Avoid - simples.

[Jeff Layman]

If you hit a brick wall at speed, it's the deceleration from the car's speed to near zero which will do the damage (to you).

If you hit someone else at speed while they are standing still, their body will accelerate from zero to near the speed of your car, and it's the acceleration which will do the damage (to them).

[dennis]

There is also the fact that habitual speeders tend to commit other offences so catching them speeding and getting them off the road is a good thing.

[The Natural Philosopher]

We was involved helping them set up their original IT. They ripped us off.

They are cowboys from start to finish.

[dennis]

I think its just you. 8-)

BTW how many people do you know that have been fined for doing 41 in a

40 limit?

So its OK to murder someone as long as you only just do it?

Maybe its the wrong attitude to say its OK to just exceed the legal limit just because the technology to catch you wasn't around a few years ago.

[dennis]

Which insurance companies increase the premiums for one speeding camera offence? I know of none.