I am fairly sure that originally they required a certain KSI score before they would entertain installing one to protect a junction.
I am not a great fan of smart motorways. I have seen the M62 with alternate gantries showing 40 and 60 which generated insane congestion on an otherwise smooth running road but sadly before I had the dashcam. Some of the time speed limits are correctly set to protect broken down vehicles but phantom "animals on road" warnings are commonplace.
OTOH average speed cameras do seem to work at reducing KSI incidents (typically head on overtaking crashes) on single carriageways. eg.
Because most people don't understand frames of reference and physics.
TNP was using the term "acceleration" as anyone familiar with the science of physics would, a change in velocity over time. If great enough, it kills. Speed, per se, doesn't.
If you insist on only thinking in lay terms, try stalling your car on a level crossing. I think you'll find the acceleration quite life terminating. ;-)
A friend of mine took a speed awareness course *voluntarily*. It bumped his renewal premium up. Sounds crazy but his honesty forced him to tick the box "Have you ever had a speeding endorsement or attended a speed awareness course?".
When I was working on telemetrics for a UK insurer, the underwriting team were emphatic that speeding was the biggest single predictor of other high risk behaviour. Which is why the black boxes recorded that as a minimum.
Beyond that, you start looking at acceleration/deceleration.
If you had the processing power (no one has) you could also run a journey through a mapping service, and see how the road speed compared to the road type and condition.
However, given I have seen rating algorithms throw a fit when a car going along an NSL road "appears" to suddenly exceed a 30 mph speed limit by
40mph (because on the map there is an under/over pass), we're not quite there yet.
Personally? None. But someone here has already cited someone being done for doing 31 in a 30 and all the new rules state this is highly likely.
Again with your poor droid binary logic in a very analogue human world. ;-(
The nearest answer I can give that might help you understand is that 'attempted murder' *is* 'better' (if you are the defendant) than murder.
Better still is swinging your fists about in a pub whilst mucking about with your mates and accidentally hitting someone else.
Q. Was the intention to hit someone (a stranger)? A. No.
Q. Would the action be considered sensible under the circumstances. A. No.
Q. Should the person be hung for it. A. Most people would probably say no.
No one is suggesting it should be considered 'ok' to exceed the speed limits, it's just that we have had a very 'human' sliding scale of what is considered acceptable for many years and it generally works.
If you want to actually lower the speed limits nationally, then that's what they should do.
The 'point' (not *my* point, *the* point) is to address those who regularly disregard the law and speed excessively (De Minimis) or use speed inappropriately. Penalising someone for doing 41 in a (temporary) 40 limit is neither.
However, unless you actually bang them up, many will continue driving fast and dangerously (often in stolen vehicles) and don't pay any attention to the 'rules'.
It's like the fallacy that somehow leaving the EU will reduce the instances of illegal immigration where it's more likely to increase it.
The safety camera scheme was where the local authority could install cameras (like gatso) in danger areas. The local authority got to keep the revenues. This lead to claims they were using the cameras as cash cows. As a result various changes have been made like having to paint the cameras yellow, put up warning signs and now they don't get any cash from them. The net result is they are very rare now.
The police have always been able to operate speed cameras and they can be hidden but they get no revenue so they are only sited where there is a real problem.
The big expansion in cameras recently is on parking and bus lane enforcement where the local authority get to keep the cash.
So there you have it.
If the road is generally clear they won't put a lower speed limit on that bit of smart motorway except when they have hard shoulder running when they don't want someone doing 70 ploughing into the back of a broken down vehicle on the "hard shoulder".
You really must think about how smart motorways operate to understand it.
Of course 70 mph is not the best speed unless you like to drive dangerously close to the one in front. Simple physics should tell you that as the energy you need to dissipate when braking goes up with the square of the speed and hence it takes longer to stop.
Maybe you can explain how the smart motorway bit of the M6 as suddenly got less congested (decreased travel times not less cars)? I assume you have a theory that doesn't include the lower speed limits affecting the traffic flow for the better.
Its obvious to those with a general understanding of the physical world.
You aren't actually discussing reality AFAICS. How many people do you know that have been done for doing 41 in a 40 limit?
no but there wasn't much chance of causing an accident, he wouldn't have been doing 120 if there was. There was more chance if I had slowed to find a gap rather than going into the one I could see in front.
Ask a traffic patrol what they think of drivers that do that.
Its what you are talking about, the rest of us would like to know what the real tolerances are. Like you are probably only doing 65 when your speedo reads 70. Or 28 mph when it reads 30.
I thought it was quite clear, rather than raise the speed limit to avoid prosecuting those doing 79 then apply the law and prosecute 71+. Its what you are saying they do on smart motorways.
There is no revenue from speed cameras as far as the operators of those cameras are concerned. Once you work out that they are not cash cows then maybe you can think straight.
Not all smart motorways have hard shoulder running. Smart motorways control the flow of traffic so that you don't get the constant stop and start standing waves on them once you exceed a certain traffic flow.
Well they have done so, its somewhat cheaper than building another lane in many cases.
There is no revenue from fines to the camera operators! It costs them money to use them.
No it does not, passing your test only allows you to continue learning on your own.
I don't see the problem, you are breaking the law and if caught you may be prosecuted. Do you think they should set the limit to 41 and do those driving at 42?
Why should they cause any road rage incidents? The sort of driver that commits road rage for someone doing 27 mph is just as likely to do it at 30 or 33.
I will say again what makes you think the limits on a smart motorway are for safety alone?
In fact what makes you think the limits on normal roads are for safety alone?
Not sure why you highlighted "voluntarily* as if it was a somehow special occurrence.
Attending an SAC in lieu of a fine and points is *always* voluntary, as is compliance with the conditions of the course and the option to be removed from the course by the instructor(s) and referred back to the courts for fine and points.
Making stuff up again. A good driver will also see the signs and they make some of the prompts.
Where don't they apply?
So you are taking the prompts and you would be driving at a safe speed to cope with the HID lights dazzling you and the dear running out as well as the highly visible gatso safety camera. However you may not have noticed the hidden police speed enforcement camera so what do you do then?.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.