| |
Compliance with Speed Limits
In an ideal world all drivers would obey all speed limits
at all times. Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal
world and for any number of reasons drivers do from
time to time fail to stick to the posted limit.
Over the years a number of measures have been developed
to help drivers stay within the speed limit in force.
These measures have the effect of changing the nature
or appearance of the road to encourage drivers that
a slower speed is appropriate. Local authorities have
all the necessary powers to introduce any measure they
deem appropriate, but obviously which one would depend
on the nature of the problem.
Road humps are the most commonly used and most effective
measure, reducing speeds by up to 10mph. They are most
effective on urban roads, around schools and in residential
areas.They are not usually appropriate for rural areas.
Other measures include build outs or chicanes that narrow
the road thereby encouraging lower speeds, or road markings
that have the visual effect of narrowing the carriageway.
Where there is a need to warn drivers to reduce speed
when approaching a hazard, vehicle activated signs have
proved to be very effective.These are signs that remain
blank until a vehicle approaching at a certain speed
triggers a message to be displayed electronically.These
signs can be very effective on rural roads where the
national speed limit applies but drivers need to slow
down considerably to take account of a crossroad, a
sharp bend or other hazard.
Enforcement
Ideally, all drivers obey the speed limit in force.And
where compliance is an issue, some form of intervention
measure, such as traffic calming or road realignment
would be introduced that persuades drivers to adhere
to the posted limit.
However, there are roads where there is a history of
accidents but where conventional traffic calming or
other forms of persuasion are unsuitable or have proved
ineffective. On these roads there may be no alternative
but to provide an increased level of enforcement. The
most common form of enforcement is safety cameras. The
purpose of cameras is to deter speeding at sites where
speed related accidents have occurred, not to catch
drivers speeding. The police are responsible for enforcing
the speed limit and may use any Home Office approved
equipment.Apart from traditional fixed speed camera
housings, the three most common ways to enforce speed
limits are:
a) in-car speed measuring systems operated by
a police officer, which measure the average speed of
a suspected speeding vehicle over a given distance.
b) handheld speed measuring equipment where a
police officer measures the speed of passing vehicles
with a ‘radar gun’.That officer will work in tandem
with a colleague, positioned further along the road
concerned,who will be responsible for stopping any offending
vehicle and informing the driver of his speed; and
c) portable speed detection devices which are
trained across a road by a supervising officer to measure
the speed of any vehicle going through the ‘line of
sight’ of the device.
A second ‘stopping’ officer can pull over a speeding
vehicle if so requested by the officer monitoring the
device.
These devices may also have photographic recording ability,
allowing the police to send notifications and requirements
to the registered vehicle keeper.
Changing Attitudes
There are various reasons why people speed.
Some are simply excited by driving fast.They can be
easily affected by motoring magazines and programmes
that highlight the top performance levels of some vehicles.
Motorists in general simply regard the breaking of speed
limits – at least in a minor way – as not a very serious
matter.Those caught speeding are considered to be ‘unlucky’.
But the consequences of driving too fast can be very
serious. Being involved in a collision can result in
death or serious injury.
Successive governments have set targets to reduce road
accident casualties and it is clear that, increasingly,
these cannot be achieved without reducing the number
of people killed or injured as a result of speed. Long
term publicity campaigns are aimed at making drivers
and riders aware of the dangers of excessive and inappropriate
speed and the substantial safety benefits that can be
gained by even small reductions in speed.
In brief:
Facts and figures Because the dangers are so severe,
a number of measures have been developed to persuade
drivers to slow down. These measures are not always
popular but nevertheless they do work.
20mph Zones and Limits
20mph Zones
-Average speeds within zones reduce by 9mph and accident
frequency reduces by 60%
-Overall reduction in child accidents = up to 67%
-Overall reduction in cycle accidents = up to 27%
-Traffic flow within zones reduced by up to 27%
(Source TRL Report 215 - “Review of Traffic Calming
Schemes in 20mph zones”)
20mph Limits
-Speed limit signing without supporting traffic calming
measures reduction of an average of 1mph.
(Source TRL Report 363 - “Urban Speed Management Methods”)
Road Humps
-Road humps in their various forms achieved the biggest
mean speed reduction (based on a mean speed before traffic
calming of 30mph)
-100mm high raised junctions (Commonly known as speed
tables, these are large flat topped humps that straddle
the entire junction.) achieved biggest reduction of
up to 12mph and subsequent likely accident reduction
of 60%.
-75mm high flat-top road humps and 80mm high round-top
humps achieved a 10mph speed reduction and a likely
accident reduction of 50%.
(Department recommends 75mm road humps as achieving
best speed reduction with least negative impacts).
(Source TRL Report 482 “The Impacts of traffic calming
measures on vehicle exhaust emissions”)
Vehicle Activated Signs
Vehicle activated signs are predominately used in rural
areas.They are an electronic sign that flashes a message
to the driver if a predetermined speed has been triggered.
Research has shown them to be very effective at reducing
speed and collisions at hazards such as sharp bends
and junctions with poor visibility.
They are also sometimes used to remind the driver of
the speed limit in force.
Their effectiveness can be broken down as follows:
-Mean speed reductions at speed limit roundel signs
of between 3-9mph
-Mean speed reductions of up to 7mph at junction and
bend warning signs
-Mean speed reductions of up to 4mph on safety camera
repeater signs
-Overall one-third reduction in accidents at trial sites
(Norfolk sites)
(Source TRL Report 548 - “Vehicle Activated Signs -
a large scale evaluation)
Cameras
Effects on casualties at camera sites:
-A 40% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously
injured (KSI)
-870 fewer KSIs per year, including over 100 fewer deaths
-a 33% fall in injury accidents – 4,030 fewer per year
-35% reduction in pedestrians killed or seriously injured
Effect on speed
-average speeds at all new sites fall by around 7% or
2.4mph;
-average speed at urban sites fall by around 8%
-the number of vehicles speeding at new camera sites
drop by 71%
Other findings
-79% of people asked support the use of cameras to reduce
casualties
-the benefit to society through casualties saves about
£221 million per year
(Source:The National Safety Camera Programme Three-year
evaluation Report - June 2004)
For further information on Speed and other road safety
issues you can visit the THINK! campaign website at:
www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk or for information covering
the Department of Transport as a whole visit www.dft.gov.uk
Drivers with speeding points aren’t more dangerous
says Safe Speed
Research commissioned by 8 midlands camera partnerships,
published today, claims that drivers with speeding points
are more crash involved.
Safe speed points out that many insurance companies
- working from comprehensive data - disagree. They do
not load the premiums of drivers with speeding points.
That isn’t the only problem with the claims.
• Although the claim is being made that there has been
some correction for ’risk exposure’ (obviously drivers
who do higher mileages are more exposed to the risk
of crashes and more exposed to the risk of speeding
convictions) we have no confidence that the correction
has been carried out properly. After all, for an insurance
company, you would think that speeding convictions would
function as an exposure proxy. Because of the greater
exposure we DO expect those with more convictions to
be more crash involved. But if many insurance companies
are not even finding that effect, then it seems likely
that mile for mile, those with speeding convictions
are LESS likely to be crash involved.
• If speeding convictions made drivers safer, then we
should expect the opposite effect to that claimed. Convicted
drivers should have become safer. If convicted drivers
are more crash involved then clearly the system isn’t
working to make the roads safer.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "I believe that this research
is nonsense, strongly influenced by pre-conceptions
and vested interests. Speed cameras do not identify
risky drivers nor do they make our roads safer."
"It’s junk science, and junk science makes our roads
more dangerous because it tends to cause life-saving
resources to be misallocated. This is the
fundamental reason that speed cameras have proved to
be a road safety disaster .
Everyone - drivers, police, highways authorities and
many road safety groups - are expending resources on
the wrong safety factor. Had those same resources been
allocated efficiently, we would now be down to around
2,000 road deaths per year. We’re over 1,000 lives a
year behind schedule and I am certain that speed cameras
are at the centre of the problem."
"Our speed cameras are all in the wrong places - they
should be in the scrap yard."
|
|
|
