How do I get the mobile speed camera on our road?

[spindrift]

'If the statement above were true, then motorways would be death traps, they are not, they are the roads with the lowest number of crashes.'

 

We've done this already, there are no vulnerable road users on motorways. Saying that speeding is safe because no pedestrians were killed on a road where there are no pedestrians is daft.

[spindrift]

'It shouldn't be down to the law or the driver to protect me, it's down to me to look.'

 

Strict liability laws in Europe assume that, since the driver is capable of causing a lot more damage than a pedestrian, the onus is on the driver to take care.

[Bonjon]

I would like to live where children CAN play in the street, people can cross slowly, cyclists mingle with no conflict. Humans competing for limited resources invariably come into conflict. I'm interested in reducing that conflict and lessening the attendant misery, not allocating blame. The penalty for listening to Greenday ought not be death. People get distracted, you manage that fact without blaming them if they die because they're distracted, or far more commonly, killed when the driver is distracted.

 

 

So you want a world where the driver is to blame for everything, there have been many instances of RTA's which have been caused by kids playing in the street, people crossing slowley etc. etc. get a grip this is the real world, if someone aint paying attention when they cross the road then there are consequenses. And these consequences are not only for the ped that gets knocked down due to their carless actions but also for the poor driver who may never get behind the wheel again due to said person paying no attention.

[Cyclone]

Is that the robust rule?

 

Taking care is fine, all drivers should be doing that. As a driver though I can't break the laws of physics. If someone steps in front of the car, then the car will hit them.

 

You keep making absolute statements about how speed is dangerous. If you mean that speed is dangerous in the event of hitting a pedestrian, then say that. (And then I won't have to disagree).

 

Try to point out where in this quote it mentions any pedestrians?

the relative risk of a car becoming involved in a casualty crash – a car crash in which people are killed or hospitalised – for cars travelling at or above 60 kilometres/hour. They found that the risk doubled for every 5 kilometres/hour above 60 kilometres/hour. Thus, a car travelling at 65 kilometres/hour was twice as likely to be involved in a casualty crash as one travelling at 60. For a car travelling at 70 kilometres/hour, the risk increased fourfold. For speeds below 60 kilometres/hour the likelihood of a fatal crash can be expected to be correspondingly reduced.

 

I don't think it does. It just incorrectly states that travelling faster increases the risk of being in a 'casualty crash'.

Maybe it means 'in a 30 mph zone', which is much more likely to be true.

[spindrift]

'So you want a world where the driver is to blame for everything'

 

Broadly, under strict liability, the person capable of causing the most harm has the greater responsibility. Unless the pedestrian was reckless or drunk or stoned or something then , civilly, the driver is held liable.

 

In the case of children, the driver is always liable, children being assumed to behave unpredictably by their vaery nature.

 

It's a tremendous civilising effect, it makes for a calmer, far more pleasant urban experience. They're experimenting with 'naked streets' in parts of London.

 

Look at your average urban road. Smothered with signs, warnings, notices, lanes, lights, hatches, etc etc. Pedestrians are herded behind railings, forced into urine-soaked subways, buried, out of sight, second place.

 

The idea is to strip away all of this. No railings. No lights or give way signs. It works brilliantly, right of way is uncertain so drivers take more care. Less stress. Less of the inevitable conflict of humans competing for a limited resource. Exhibition Road, between the Science and Natural History museums in Kensington is going naked.

[spindrift]

higher speed increases the likelihood of an accident. Very strong relationships have been established between speed and accident risk: The general relationship holds for all speeds and all roads, but the rate of increase in accident risk varies with initial speed level and road type. Large speed differences at a road also increase the likelihood of an accident. In addition, drivers driving much faster than the average driver have a higher accident risk; it is not yet evident that this is also the case for the slower driver.

 

 

 

Assessing potential effectiveness of speed reduction measures

 

Based on work by Nilsson in Sweden, a change in average speed of 1 km/h will result in a change in accident numbers ranging between 2% for a 120 km/h road and 4% for a 50 km/h road. This result has been confirmed by many before and after studies of different speed reduction measures. This relationship is used by other Scandinavian countries and by Australian and Dutch safety engineers.

 

 

 

A similar relationship is assumed in Britain, based on empirical studies by Taylor, where changes in accident numbers associated with a 1 km/h change in speed have been shown to vary between 1% and 4% for urban roads and 2.5% and 5.5% for rural roads, with the lower value reflecting good quality roads and the higher value poorer quality roads.

 

http://www.erso.eu/knowledge/content/20_speed/speed_and_accident_risk.htm

 

1 km/h increase in speed → 3% increase in accidents

 

The Australian study is in that link too.

[Cyclone]

'So you want a world where the driver is to blame for everything'

 

Broadly, under strict liability, the person capable of causing the most harm has the greater responsibility. Unless the pedestrian was reckless or drunk or stoned or something then , civilly, the driver is held liable.

 

In the case of children, the driver is always liable, children being assumed to behave unpredictably by their vaery nature.

 

It's a tremendous civilising effect, it makes for a calmer, far more pleasant urban experience. They're experimenting with 'naked streets' in parts of London.

 

Look at your average urban road. Smothered with signs, warnings, notices, lanes, lights, hatches, etc etc. Pedestrians are herded behind railings, forced into urine-soaked subways, buried, out of sight, second place.

 

The idea is to strip away all of this. No railings. No lights or give way signs. It works brilliantly, right of way is uncertain so drivers take more care. Less stress. Less of the inevitable conflict of humans competing for a limited resource. Exhibition Road, between the Science and Natural History museums in Kensington is going naked.

 

Where are they trying this?

 

I've seen the experiments in the netherlands and a few other countries, but not one in London.

 

I seriously doubt that a fair system can operate where one party is automatically held to be to blame. Children may be unpredictable, but that in no way makes it a drivers fault if one runs out with no warning and directly under the wheels of the car.

I don't believe that UK law has any provision for apportioning responsibility in the way you suggest either, in the case of a criminal prosecution it would require proof beyond reasonable doubt that the driver had committed an offence, and in a civil case it would require the proof at the standard of the balance of probabilities that it was the drivers (sole) fault.

[spindrift]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23722080-details/We+must+support+the+Kensington+road+revolution/article.do

 

First in Kensington High Street, then in Sloane Square and now in Exhibition Road and Basil Street, it is attempting to introduce what is common practice in towns and cities abroad but is anathema to the reactionary 4x4 crazed inhabitants of its borough - the concept of shared space.

 

Since the concept demands a counter-intuitive shift in perception, it needs constant restatement. Like most people, I used to regard traffic separation and pedestrianisation as the way forward for traffic in towns.

 

Yet from Italian hill towns to American metroplexes, motor vehicles have not been replaced or excluded as the lifeblood of living settlements. They remain a part of city living.

 

We are conditioned to assume that, because cars are big and fast, they cannot co-exist with other road users. But cars are driven by people with eyes and ears.

 

They become lethal only when drivers are turned into zombies by concentrating on signs above and below their normal line of vision. They race as fast as they can between lights and crossings.

 

Shared or "naked" streets regard vehicles as people on wheels. They have a right to a share of public space, though not in any unique or privileged sense.

 

 

 

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4686

 

If a motor vehicle hits a pedestrian, cyclist, equestrian or disabled person, the non-motorised user is far more likely to be injured. This ought to mean that drivers have a greater duty of care for non-motorised users’ safety. However, this is not currently recognised in law.

 

Although the current civil liability system requires negligence to be proven, this creates an inherent balance against pedestrians and cyclists who, due to their greater vulnerability, are far less likely to recall how the collision occurred with the clarity needed to be a “good witness” in court.

 

Hence non-motorised crash victims often find it very difficult to obtain compensation for damages. This current situation regularly leads to grave injustice, far more serious than anything that could possibly result if the burden of proof were reversed in such cases.

 

The law on driver insurance schemes should therefore be amended so that non-motorised road users will be able to claim injury damages from drivers who hit them, unless it can be shown that the non-motorised road user behaved recklessly. In deciding whether a person has acted recklessly, their mental and physical characterisitics should be taken into account, so that groups such as children, people with learning difficulties and disabled people who may not have appreciated the outcomes of their actions would be able to claim damages.

 

Drivers would not be criminalised under these proposals, which are in line with laws already in place in other European countries. They would merely be required to drive safely, and to take the requisite care around children and other people who can be expected to act unpredictably.

[Cyclone]

higher speed increases the likelihood of an accident. Very strong relationships have been established between speed and accident risk: The general relationship holds for all speeds and all roads, but the rate of increase in accident risk varies with initial speed level and road type. Large speed differences at a road also increase the likelihood of an accident. In addition, drivers driving much faster than the average driver have a higher accident risk; it is not yet evident that this is also the case for the slower driver.

 

 

 

Assessing potential effectiveness of speed reduction measures

 

Based on work by Nilsson in Sweden, a change in average speed of 1 km/h will result in a change in accident numbers ranging between 2% for a 120 km/h road and 4% for a 50 km/h road. This result has been confirmed by many before and after studies of different speed reduction measures. This relationship is used by other Scandinavian countries and by Australian and Dutch safety engineers.

 

 

 

A similar relationship is assumed in Britain, based on empirical studies by Taylor, where changes in accident numbers associated with a 1 km/h change in speed have been shown to vary between 1% and 4% for urban roads and 2.5% and 5.5% for rural roads, with the lower value reflecting good quality roads and the higher value poorer quality roads.

 

http://www.erso.eu/knowledge/content/20_speed/speed_and_accident_risk.htm

 

1 km/h increase in speed → 3% increase in accidents

 

The Australian study is in that link too.

Your copy and paste stopped a little early

 

In practice the relationship is more complex. The exact relationship depends among many other things on speed level and road type.

 

It would be interesting to see the statistics for accidents on the unregulated portions of the autobahn.

I've looked before and I don't remember them having an increased risk of accidents compared to the portions with limits...

[Cyclone]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23722080-details/We+must+support+the+Kensington+road+revolution/article.do

 

First in Kensington High Street, then in Sloane Square and now in Exhibition Road and Basil Street, it is attempting to introduce what is common practice in towns and cities abroad but is anathema to the reactionary 4x4 crazed inhabitants of its borough - the concept of shared space.

 

Since the concept demands a counter-intuitive shift in perception, it needs constant restatement. Like most people, I used to regard traffic separation and pedestrianisation as the way forward for traffic in towns.

 

Yet from Italian hill towns to American metroplexes, motor vehicles have not been replaced or excluded as the lifeblood of living settlements. They remain a part of city living.

 

We are conditioned to assume that, because cars are big and fast, they cannot co-exist with other road users. But cars are driven by people with eyes and ears.

 

They become lethal only when drivers are turned into zombies by concentrating on signs above and below their normal line of vision. They race as fast as they can between lights and crossings.

 

Shared or "naked" streets regard vehicles as people on wheels. They have a right to a share of public space, though not in any unique or privileged sense.

 

 

 

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4686

 

If a motor vehicle hits a pedestrian, cyclist, equestrian or disabled person, the non-motorised user is far more likely to be injured. This ought to mean that drivers have a greater duty of care for non-motorised users’ safety. However, this is not currently recognised in law.

 

Although the current civil liability system requires negligence to be proven, this creates an inherent balance against pedestrians and cyclists who, due to their greater vulnerability, are far less likely to recall how the collision occurred with the clarity needed to be a “good witness” in court.

 

Hence non-motorised crash victims often find it very difficult to obtain compensation for damages. This current situation regularly leads to grave injustice, far more serious than anything that could possibly result if the burden of proof were reversed in such cases.

 

The law on driver insurance schemes should therefore be amended so that non-motorised road users will be able to claim injury damages from drivers who hit them, unless it can be shown that the non-motorised road user behaved recklessly. In deciding whether a person has acted recklessly, their mental and physical characterisitics should be taken into account, so that groups such as children, people with learning difficulties and disabled people who may not have appreciated the outcomes of their actions would be able to claim damages.

 

Drivers would not be criminalised under these proposals, which are in line with laws already in place in other European countries. They would merely be required to drive safely, and to take the requisite care around children and other people who can be expected to act unpredictably.

 

I'd argue that it's still reckless to run in front of car, whether you understand the consequences or not there is no way that the car driver can or could have possibly avoided such a collision.