I accept that the risk of death, as opposed to injury, increases rapidly, even
with a small increase of speed, and many deaths are caused where people are
driving too fast in an environment where there is already a risk to other road
users and pedestrians.And I agree with local authorities taking measures to combat speeding in areas
where there may be a risk in order to reduce the incidence of deaths when
accidents do occur.
A variety of traffic calming measures have been introduced across the
UK including Speed Cameras, Kill Your Speed
signs, Rumble Strips, Chicanes and many varieties of Speed Humps.
I am convinced that Speed Cameras are mainly installed as revenue earners
rather than public safety devices and, as transgression detectors, they do
little to reduce traffic speeds, only catching those unfortunate enough to
have not slowed down on the rare occasions when there is film installed.
The Kill Your Speed signs have become so prolific of late that they
no longer have any effect, not even subliminally, and it is ironic that the
Rumble Strips ( multiple, thick painted lines across the carriageway ) which
are often close by have less effect the faster one travels over them.
The prolification of, "Slippery Road", signs on motorway slip road exits has
not escaped my attention either; if nearly every slip road is so dangerous
then something ought to be done about them.
If they are, as it would appear, a clever means of trying to make
drivers slow down then their numerous appearances do nothing to aid the
driver, who has long given up on paying any attention to them, when there
actually is a serious risk involved.
Chicanes, where a lane is closed, forcing drivers to give way to
oncoming traffic in the other lane, as they have to move out to avoid the
obstruction, have no effect when there are no oncoming vehicles and are
dangerous, both when the sudden blocking of the lane is unforeseen ( and
usually unmarked ) and when drivers misjudge the speed of approaching traffic
and pull out regardless.
Which leaves Speed Humps, or Speed Bumps and Sleeping Policemen as they are
also referred to, as the only real traffic calming measure which has any
actual effect.
Unfortunately Speed Humps are only effective if designed properly and are
down right dangerous when they aren't.
The original Speed Hump, still found in car parks but not elsewhere these days,
was a small, foot wide, three to six inches high, hump which usually spread the
whole width of the road.
These were phenomenally successful in reducing speeds; not just to the speed
limit but to almost a crawl as traversing these at anything but a snail's pace
was guaranteed to cause some sort of damage to the vehicle or the passengers
as they were thrown about.
Unfortunately this style of hump also slowed down emergency vehicles on urgent
calls and were actually life threatening for spinal injury patients being
carried in ambulances.
Which is why, thank goodness, they have fallen out of favour.
They also had the unfortunate side effect of increasing vehicle pollution as
drivers raced between obstructions, slowed down and accelerated away again.
The bunching of vehicles at such obstructions also led to drivers taking
excessive risks later in their journeys as they attempted to regain lost time
by overtaking large numbers of slower moving vehicles.
Unfortunately both problems still exist today, with even the best designed
restrictions in place.
A variant on the original theme meant that the hump was flattened out, its
height reduced and the hump ended before the kerbs. This meant that drivers
could keep their left hand wheels flat on the road, in the gutter, whilst
only the right hand side of the vehicle was lifted.
In practice, this meant that drivers could traverse such humps at, or above,
the speed limit with few adverse effects ( especially if they were the sole
occupant of the vehicle ) and it did little to decrease traffic speeds and
nothing to further patient care of those lying in the back of ambulances.
A further variation introduced the hump which partially spanned a lane,
stopping short of the kerb and the centre carriageway markings. This was
intended to allow heavy and emergency vehicles, with wide wheel bases, to
pass over without their wheels touching the hump at all whilst normal
vehicles, with narrower wheel bases, would have to slow down.
In practice, most cars have a fairly wide wheel base and so can, providing
they are centred correctly, drive over with little noticable effects, even
at high speed, or the previous trick of driving with one wheel in the gutter
could be applied without reducing speed.
The most effective speed bumps have been of the plateau type where a
whole section of road, to its full width, is raised for a considerable length.
Some designs have been more effective than others; if the approaching edge is
to sharp, it is no better than the original hump, and if too shallow, it has
no effect whatsoever.
One major defect is that this style of hump is usually built using bricks
which can often work lose from their surroundings making the hump extremely
dangerous if not rectified.
If properly designed, the approach speed of the vehicle determines the ease
by which the plateau can be mounted and crossed; at or below the speed for
which it was designed there will be no adverse effects, too fast and it is
like hitting an original style speed bump, uncomfortable and damaging to the
vehicle.
When this style of hump is designed well, it does the job it is meant to, which
means it must be asked, why are the other styles of humps being used when they
are known to be dangerous, problematical or just ineffective ?
It seems to me that no one has ever actually taken the time out to ask any
actual driver, who doesn't slow down if they can avoid it, what makes them do
so.
Which begs the further question, if we are intent on introducing effective
speed reducing features; why not ?
The idiot gene
With traffic calming measures so widespread; I would be surprised if anyone
but the most recently qualified motorist had not gained experience of such
measures and would have experimented with the various ways of negotiating
these restrictions, if not to do so at the maximum speed possible, then to do
so whilst causing the least amount of damage to their vehicles.
From all the conversations I have been involved in or overheard, regarding a
recent introduction of speed humps of one form or another, someone in the party
has always provided a solution as to how to minimise their effects. And when
a new variant of a speed hump arrives, enterprising individuals attempt
different techniques to find which one performs the best and reports back
later.
Observing other drivers to see how they negotiate the obstructions and at
what speeds also provides useful information as does a little experimentation
by one's self.
So it comes as a complete surprise when a speed reducing measure, which allows
me to pass over safely at the speed limit, causes many others to perform full
emergency stops before they traverse the insignificant obstruction at a
speed well below the limit.
Modern ideology and design means that it is possible to implement speed humps
which allow vehicles to pass over them at the speed permitted in the area in
which they are placed and generally new speed reduction methods have applied
this principle.
Older, less accommodating, restrictions are being removed and replaced with new
ones as the problems of the older designs are realised.
So what explains the actions of the driver who has to slam on his brakes to
traverse an obstruction so slowly when they could continue at the speed limit
the road has been assigned ?
It's either a complete lack of knowledge about how these restrictions work,
why they are there or fear of experimentation; so the safest course of
action [sic] is taken.
Or it's the idiot gene at work once again.
It is particularly worrying to see such bad driving under these circumstances
but even more worrying when, having left the traffic calmed areas, that they
then accelerate up to, and often beyond, the speed limit.
If they are so incompetent at negotiating a speed hump; just how safe are they
at high speeds ?
Whilst speed may well be a contributory factor in the deaths upon our roads; we
must not forget the idiots propelling the weapon used.
If someone is heading for an accident; they will get there no matter what speed
they are driving at.
Misguided government campaigns
Whilst I appreciate the UK government's campaigns to educate drivers about the
dangers of inappropriate speed ( as I have said, it's not just about speed
itself ); I am rather disappointed about the way in which they are attempting
to do so.The Kill Your Speed campaign fails to distinguish between appropriate and
inappropriate speed and instead concentrates, simplistically, on the fact that
the speed of impact directly affects whether an impacted pedestrian will be
injured or killed.
The prolification of Kill Your Speed signs has meant that they have
become nothing more than background noise to drivers who are ignoring the
speed limit signs in the first place; even less effective than the
Welcome To ... signs with the obligatory Please Drive Slowly
tagline beneath.
The associated Driver's Pledge campaign asking drivers, "to reduce
their speed", is farcical; why should they when there is no danger and their
speeds are appropriate for the road upon which they are travelling ?
Yes, there's always the chance that someone may jump out on a motorway who,
at seventy miles an hour, would be almost guaranteed to be killed outright.
But how likely is this ?
If everyone took the entirely pessimistic view that the worst was always just
around the corner then we should hand in our car keys and buy C5's or
battery powered milk floats.
Driving is dangerous, there are risks involved at any speed, inappropriate
speed increases those risks astronomically.
The government campaigns should, I believe, focus on what appropriate speed is
under various circumstances and should not just concentrate on the catch all,
Speed Kills; that's just emotionalism and does very little by way of
educating drivers in the wider scheme of things.
Asking drivers, as one radio advert did, to, "Look at your speed and see if
you are going faster than you thought", was, to me, little more than
patronising.
I may have been breaking the speed limit, but on a perfectly straight motorway
section, with five mile visibility, no other traffic behind or ahead of me
and little chance of an unexpected incident.
Yes, I may have had a tyre blow-out, a risk I had assessed, and perhaps a
three bedroom house may have dropped into the road which I hadn't expected
and couldn't avoid, with the inevitable consequences.
I knew exactly what speed I was driving at, I considered the speed to be
appropriate for the conditions. If a three bedroom house had dropped out of
the sky I think I would have hit it no matter what speed I was doing.
Asking me to look at my speedometer, at the speed I was travelling at, could
even be argued to be dangerous. My priority was being aware of the speed I was
travelling at, the circumstances surrounding me and planning pre-emptive responses
to events which occurred.
If there were genuine reasons why I should have slowed down, things which I
hadn't perceived to be dangerous, then why not tell me ?
Just telling me to slow down because there's a greater chance someone will be
killed at 40 mph than 30 mph; is meaningless if I am travelling at over
twice that speed.
I consider myself to be a good driver but I am sure that there are some things
that I have either overlooked or have not been aware of or am failing to
place enough weight upon; if so, enlighten me.
There are worse things happening on our roads than speeding; the government
should try to do something about that.
If driver quality improves then accident and fatality statistics will decrease;
by all means educate people, but don't believe that asking for a reduction in
speed, which will be ineffective anyway, is the universal panacea.
