 
|
 |
Speeding | |
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."
|
|
