Self righteous cameramen

[rick99]

............ the speed limit goes down to 40 on Motorways. I'm sure that'd suit some. I'd find it intolerable.

Yes, it would suit some people but I'd find it a tad frustrating ........... not intolerable. If that was what the law stated, so be it.

Speed doesn't kill or maim.
It's not being able to stop in time that causes the accidents .............. and I don't like the term "accident", because these incidents are man-made and not true accidents.

Slow down, or make sure that you can see far enough to go faster. If you can't see far enough to stop, you must slow down.

Quite


I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

[Cyril Haearn]

The reason the 70mph limit isn't enforced is because it was introduced when brakes, suspension, tyres were worse and is now considered too low by sane people.

It's a composting toilet -> my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

What I have never worked out is why virtually every junction, crossing and even some bends need to have the high friction braking surfaces.

Clear junction visible lights and plant of notice



Yet despite brakes, suspension and tyres have improved so greatly, so many drivers were unable to actually stop at a junction that there is a need to increase the friction of the road!

Again, given the inability of all too many drivers to stop safely at junctions, is allowing them to approach these junctions faster really a good idea?

No it is awful, if it increases friction it increases tyre wear. I drive the same way to work every day and hardly use the brakes, I just take my foot off the gas and glide. Often the lights have changed back to green before I reach them

[rick99]

The reason the 70mph limit isn't enforced is because it was introduced when brakes, suspension, tyres were worse and is now considered too low by sane people.

What I have never worked out is why virtually every junction, crossing and even some bends need to have the high friction braking surfaces.

Clear junction visible lights and plant of notice

Yet despite brakes, suspension and tyres have improved so greatly, so many drivers were unable to actually stop at a junction that there is a need to increase the friction of the road!

Again, given the inability of all too many drivers to stop safely at junctions, is allowing them to approach these junctions faster really a good idea?

why do you assume that just because junctions have high friction coatings, people previously couldn't stop and I particular due to their own fault? Again. A logical error.


I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

[mjr]

Why do you assume it's an assumption, rather than bitter experience as a highways consultee that objects to this motorist speed facilitation measure that is frequently misrepresented as a safety improvement, but is overruled at the moment?

[rick99]

Who's the highway consultee? You or Cunobelin?
Your analysis could be extended to almost any safety measure.

[BakfietsUK]

Getting back to cameras and those who use them:

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/crime/ ... -1-7906795

I think this is the most positive thing the Police have done for our safety in my living memory. This is not self righteous and I don't think the intention was to do anything but bring the issue up the pecking order and raise awareness.

This Police initiative includes identifying motorists who may think a close pass is something of a triviality and a minor infringement. However, as most of us would realise they are potentially catastrophic for cyclists. Some may think they are justified to extend the boundaries out of their own sense of some sort of divine wisdom not possessed by most of us mere mortals. Sure, a lot of the time "innocent" mistakes can happen and no-one is immune from this. People still get put in prison for "man slaughter", so in effect it is illegal in some contexts to make a random error. It's the reason for the error that is then in question, whether it be a lapse of concentration, a misjudgement or an indiscretion.

This initiative identifies where there is a real need for enforcement and trumps the notion of "self righteous" use of cameras. If the OP seeks to imply that cameras are just used by vigilantes, then in my opinion they are incorrect.

[mjr]

Who's the highway consultee? You or Cunobelin?
Your analysis could be extended to almost any safety measure.

I am and I have been told that examples of that surfacing was laid to allow motorists to stop more easily and improve road safety. Of course, motorists recognise it as a grippy surface, the dangerously incompetent ones overcompensate and so it doesn't work - but fortunately, the main effect seems to be more car-car collisions as following motorists overshoot into the back of other vehicles, rather than overshooting the stop line into crossing cycle/foot traffic.

I don't know for sure whether Cunobelin has been a RtR rep or similar for another group, but he writes like he has. Also, the image used is not from this country (the left-turn arrow is a different shape and the dash lengths and use of solid lines aren't UK spec) so I doubt we know why that particular example was installed, but I could be wrong.

But the point I was making is that assuming it's an assumption seemed equally groundless and made the criticism a bit hypocritical.

[rick99]

But the point I was making is that assuming it's an assumption seemed equally groundless and made the criticism a bit hypocritical.

I still think the original premise is an assumption. It assumes that the new coatings were put in because people couldn't stop properly. You have no reason, particularly, to make the assertion that it isn't an assumption. There are various another reasons, the most likely one to me would appear to be someone fulfilling their job to improve road safety as they see fit. 'People brake at junctions: let's help them'. I doubt it went further than that.
You then go on to suggest that there is a problem with the high friction coatings in that they encourage late braking and therefore colliosions. I'm surprised but you appear to have some studies for this, so 'fair enough', but it's not the same subject as the other chap and me were discussing.
I would appreciate it if you stopped the "narrow minded hypocritical" name calling, too. It may be what you think of me, but my first post on the assumption was a question, and not impolite.

[rick99]

This initiative identifies where there is a real need for enforcement and trumps the notion of "self righteous" use of cameras. If the OP seeks to imply that cameras are just used by vigilantes, then in my opinion they are incorrect.

How does it 'trump' anything?
It's like saying because I deplore knife wielding thugs, I think that everyone who owns a kitchen knife is a thug.
This looks like a 'good thing'. In particular it is the right target: Motorists endangering vulnerable cyclists. That's why the police are doing it. You'll notice they aren't following commuting cyclists with a camera attempting to catch them walking through pedestrian crossing red lights at 530am.

[Vorpal]

Who's the highway consultee? You or Cunobelin?
Your analysis could be extended to almost any safety measure.

Many of us on this forum are or have been cycle campaigners and/or representing cyclists in consultations. Also we often discuss such topics, so some of us are more knowledgeable than many others about traffic safety measures and infrastructure design.

Many safety measures that seem like common sense either make no difference, or actually make things worse for one or more participants in whatever the measure is meant to target. There are many reasons for this, but behaviour is often a key element. One of the problems with the approach to road safety in the UK is that it is often focused upon technical measures (like the braking surface), and ignores the behavioural aspects of traffic safety.

[rick99]

Who's the highway consultee? You or Cunobelin?
Your analysis could be extended to almost any safety measure.

Many of us on this forum are or have been cycle campaigners and/or representing cyclists in consultations. Also we often discuss such topics, so some of us are more knowledgeable than many others about traffic safety measures and infrastructure design.

Many safety measures that seem like common sense either make no difference, or actually make things worse for one or more participants in whatever the measure is meant to target. There are many reasons for this, but behaviour is often a key element. One of the problems with the approach to road safety in the UK is that it is often focused upon technical measures (like the braking surface), and ignores the behavioural aspects of traffic safety.

That rings true.

[Cunobelin]

The reason the 70mph limit isn't enforced is because it was introduced when brakes, suspension, tyres were worse and is now considered too low by sane people.

What I have never worked out is why virtually every junction, crossing and even some bends need to have the high friction braking surfaces.

Clear junction visible lights and plant of notice

Yet despite brakes, suspension and tyres have improved so greatly, so many drivers were unable to actually stop at a junction that there is a need to increase the friction of the road!

Again, given the inability of all too many drivers to stop safely at junctions, is allowing them to approach these junctions faster really a good idea?

why do you assume that just because junctions have high friction coatings, people previously couldn't stop and I particular due to their own fault? Again. A logical error.


It's a composting toilet -> my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

Whereas your assumption is that vehicles are so much easier to stop... ????

This is the reality

I worked with the Local Council and when an analysis was performed at a local junction the common factor was that vehicles had failed to stop at the "Give Way"

A video was set up and in each case it was a driver approaching the junction too fast, braking too late and failing to stop

The decision to spend money with a high friction surface was based on evidence that drivers were unable to drive appropriately

[rick99]

I was asking. Thanks for the answer.
My assumption was based on the fact that I've never in my life locked up my wheels at a junction. MAybe I only drive decent cars.... then again maybe I'm not the madman this board makes me out to be and can drive safely.

[Cyril Haearn]

What I have never worked out is why virtually every junction, crossing and even some bends need to have the high friction braking surfaces.

Clear junction visible lights and plant of notice

Yet despite brakes, suspension and tyres have improved so greatly, so many drivers were unable to actually stop at a junction that there is a need to increase the friction of the road!

Again, given the inability of all too many drivers to stop safely at junctions, is allowing them to approach these junctions faster really a good idea?

why do you assume that just because junctions have high friction coatings, people previously couldn't stop and I particular due to their own fault? Again. A logical error.


It's a composting toilet -> my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

Whereas your assumption is that vehicles are so much easier to stop... ????

This is the reality

I worked with the Local Council and when an analysis was performed at a local junction the common factor was that vehicles had failed to stop at the "Give Way"

A video was set up and in each case it was a driver approaching the junction too fast, braking too late and failing to stop

The decision to spend money with a high friction surface was based on evidence that drivers were unable to drive appropriately

They are able to drive properly, they choose not to

At a give way sign one must yield but must not necessarily stop

At a stop sign one must stop. I am the only one who does

[rick99]

I'm genuinely amazed that the council spends money on a study to decide that some people over-cook it at junctions... the consequence you describe by the people Cyril Haearn describes is surely foreseeable?
I wonder if the study included analysis of Whether the wheels actually skidded or ABS activated.
Higher friction is of course pointless if the guy isn't braking much.