Safe Speed Forums

Shameful.

_________________
Will the last person to leave please turn out the lights?

Yes, people who are more concerned about reducing car use than they are about saving lives are just that.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

I think they are referred to as placebo push-button boxes. They are probably there because they are required by law but they perform no useful function.
And we pay for them.

_________________
Andrew.

If push-buttons do work, why is there a delay before they have an effect?

It depends. "So as to not disrupt the flow of traffic". Or something.
It makes sense that there should be a delay if the crossing has recently been used.

But when the lights are acting as part of a system then the there's traffic going to/from all the other lights around the area to consider. I don't know exactly how it works but I'm told it does in theory.

_________________
Andrew.

I can understand why there should be a minimum period between reds on a crossing, but on the proviso that the lights are not close to any others I've never understood why there is a delay before pushing the button has an effect.

Hmm...sucking this one out my thumb, but is that waiting time cleverly designed, to ensure the pedestrian gives up and crosses the road before the light changes and then the light changes after they've gone, so drivers then have to wait for...nothing; hence endangering the pedestrian and at the same time inconveniencing the drivers?

This would obviously serve two purposes.

KSI stats are higher because pedestrians get hit while trying to get accross against a red light and driver's stress levels go up, ensuring the speed camera down the road gets them in the pocket.

Well considering that most accidents on the roads, support the fact that inattention (that covers all aspects of inattention i.e. car, driving, observation, reading a hazard or potential hazard correctly), and frustration, (that in itself can also lead to inattention), is / are, the largest cause of accidents, then the effects of 16yrs of cameras are showing up in many areas, and not least in drivers perceived importance of awareness. Bored and distracted drivers pay less attention.
Less attention leads to a false sense of security. So the inevitable consequence is a reactive driver, as they are not obtaining proper instruction to encourage proper observation of potential hazards, so instead of experience leading to good Pro-active car control, we are seeing much more Re-active car control and that is more dangerous.
However considering the overall figures whilst not improving, and still over £3K a year, we do know that the vast majority of drivers are still driving 'safely enough' not to crash. So the figures are far greater than a mere 35%. We would have to consult all the insurance companies to obtain the true picture.

Interestingly the Essex Council are inviting people to contribute to potential accident incident reporting, (locally), but there is a later statement, saying that people could be prosecuted, so instead of being a good road safety feedback, it instantly turns into one of 'grass on your neighbour! How utterly sad and such a wasted opportunity. Now they may just have done this to promote honesty and the seriousness of their intent, but they have immediately stopped many people from reporting, as most don't want to get people into trouble.
However the AA did a report of near-misses years ago.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

I wouldn't class those as accidents.

If I drive along without paying due care and attention to the environment around me and crash into somebody or something that's not an accident IMO.

I reckon only about 1% of crashes could possibly be classed as accidents by the true definition of the term.



From my observations many are just lucky not to crash.

We have been here before, but an "accident" is defined as "an unforeseen or unexpected event". It does not exclude the possibility of blame - but the point is that drivers, by and large, do not crash deliberately.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Yet with bus drivers, cyclists and other politically correct forms of transport, it's through pure skill that they don't crash.

Ever consider that your "observations" are actually you just seeing what you want to see? Someone who has a prejudice against cars is unlikely to admit to themselves that they're observing safe driving the vast majority of the time.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

Where did I say that? I see people behaving like absolute idiots on all modes of ground transport every day bombus.

I saw a guy come flying off his bike the other week, and after I asked him if he was OK and got a positive respose I told him he was riding like an idiot.

However, somebody behaving like an idiot on a push bike doesn't scare me quite as much somebody behving like an idiot behind the wheel of a car, bus or lorry in so many ways.



*sigh* I say on here time and time again the majority of drivers are conciencious, safe and careful, I don't really care about those ones though, they'll get a thumbs up from me if I'm on my bike, or a wave if I'm in my car, but it should be the norm that people pilot their vehicles in such a way, and it is; there are still too many though that don't drive or ride like this.

Well I don't disagree with such an assessment, although "too many" is subjective. But when you say things like this...


...you imply that you disagree that the vast majority of drivers are driving safely enough not to crash. That seems to be at odds with what you say above, unless you simply think that Claire should have said "majority" instead of "vast majority".

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

There's a lot of cars out there bombus, I pass hundreds every day on my cycle into work, and hundreds pass me.

There are far too many who are not working hard enough at their driving considering they're driving a one tonne vehicle at quite a speed. There are less who are working to be purposefully agressive and nasty, although they are in a vast minority, but again, still too many.

I think this shows in the crash rates, 31,000 recorded KSIs, at a statiscal average of 86 day that's quite a figure.

My expectations for people using the road in or on motor vehicles or nay other type of vehicle are quite high, and I have no issue with that.

Still, considerate and careful drivers are in the majority, but yes, I wouldn't say vast majority.

But considering that each day there must be 30 million plus individual car journeys, 86 KSIs is statistically an extremely low figure, and suggests accident avoidance is down to far more than just luck.

I don't think anyone would deny that some drivers don't give enough attention to the task, and others are deliberately aggressive and discourteous, but the figures show that the vast majority are not frequently either crashing or experiencing near-misses.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

For semantic reasons, perhaps we ought to be clear that 'an accident' is not, by nature, unavoidable, though it is, by definition, unforseen by the involved parties.

In aviation circles, where far more is done to actually understand the root causes of accidents, and eliminate them, there are several well-known models for accident causality. One of my favorites is Reason's 'Swiss Cheese' model, which basically models each causal aspect of an accident as a slice of swiss chesse, imperfect by it's holes. Several off these slices must all align in order that the unfortunate flight/drive can pass through them all to reach the accident state. Shifting any slice will prevent this passage, and so disaster will be averted. This can be as simple as shifting a participant's location in space and time, through use of a different speed, or even a different departure time.

What this model does not concern itself with is mitigating/aggravating factors, those which affect the severity of the circumstance once it has occurred, focussing rather on how to avoid the situation in the first place. It is here that we almost always find speed. True, a different speed would have seen any participant at a different location in space and time, and they may not have become involved in the situation, but the same could be said of a different departure time, or different route and, in the absence of crystal balls, these are not factors which we can 'hang our hat on' in accident avoidance. The only time, that I can forsee, that speed can actually play a part as an active causal factor in an accident is when excessive speed for the conditions has directly resulted in a loss of control. In every other situation I cannot see it being anything more than a mitigating/aggravating factor.

The problem with attempting to utilise mitigating factors to reduce accident severity is that is risks losing sight of the ultimate objective of accident prevention. It also faces issues with reductio ad absurdum as drawing a line in the sand, between beneficial and untenable, is near enough impossible. Speed limits of 1mph, and men with red flags, would almost certainly reduce fatal accidents, though not necessarily prevent accidents themselves, but it would also cripple the entire country, and reduce quality of life back to the middle ages! We could make 'uncaged' road users travel around in rolls and rolls of bubble wrap, to mitigate injuries in the case of an accident, but if they fell over, they would not be able to get up; accidental suffocations would also increase!

This is why it is so important that we focus our efforts on eliminating the true causal factors in accidents. It is not good enough to say "accidents will happen, lets just try to make them less severe", or "its too hard to stop them, we'll focus on mitigating them". This is a tragically attractive prospect for land travel, which is why we would do well to look to air travel where, due to the nature of the transport methods, this would be an unacceptable proposition. We must make preventing accidents our primary objective. Reducing their severity is wasted effort, and defeatist doctrine, when they could be avoided altogether!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Can I nominate that post for some sort of award besides Cut&Pasting it into my hard drive?

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

I am not sure complete comparisons to airborne transport, and road transport, can be entirely made, as they are not really equal.

The accident definition according to the Oxford E Dictionary, of 'accident' is :
1) A thing that happens.
2) An event. obs. in gen. sense. LME.
3) An event that is without apparent cause or unexpected; an unfortunate event, esp. one causing injury or damage. LME. 2 Chance, fortune. LME.
4) Med. An unfavourable symptom.

So if conditions are ideal, we might be able to achieve 'no accidents' at all, then, what might we do, to enable this perfect environment ?
Is education and knowledge enough?
Does it stop the 'accidents'? Would it need a reward incentive?

If each car journey was governed by a 'control tower' would this help, (not that this is in any way a viable, possibility, unless heaven forbid, satellite control became a reality! ). And what other factors could cause the differences ?
As a start, the longer length, of training is far more intense, and the exams far stricter. The operating conditions standard are higher too, and in many cases are additionally, observed by others each time one goes 'operational' (esp in this country) but I appreciate not on every occasion.

Now the controls of rules and regs, that are instilled in pilots, are far greater, than the theory & practical, driving test.

Our journeys are mostly done for our own safety, and a few others around us, so our level of responsibility, is far less, but no less important. Does the enforcement of pilots rules and reg, make their journeys 'safer' because they have to be adhered to, or because of the responsibility, or the overall ability and attitude of those that 'become', pilots? That is, are pilots good, because they are from a certain group in society or because they have received better education.
So, if our vehicle journeys, are on the whole, successful, then the main areas to look into, are the most common errors, and if these are fixed would, that solve the main problems. And in doing so, do we 'cause' other problems. Humans are individuals, granted with types and pyscological profiling we can generalise, but we cannot 'cure all'.
So what methods and systems are around to solve or improve, deaths and serious injuries. You can never achieve a zero death/accident possibility (even with serious controls in place). Even with horses people died.
When we have received enough training ? What more can we do to prevent avoidable accidents, and what other influencing factors need to be taken into consideration ?

In the same way that the government has used propaganda to try to convince people with a specific message - what if they had used that same medium for driving more responsibly ?
What if the message was "Bad driving kills" - do we all chase after 'bad driving' to a point then, when 'anything' slightly wrong, people pounce upon?
What if the message was "Inattention - didn't see it = SMIDSY - are you a SMIDSY driver?" and so on, and on. Do we end up with the right messages ?

Actually unlikely. As some Councils do recognise, a combined approach, is better, - like with the propaganda now, - or a full marketing & sales pitch, it is a broad brush that wins out, as it reaches w wider audience and crosses classes or types in society.
Can better advice help, when you learn, after the initial test, and then ongoing instruction, support & assistance?
The Safe Speed Manifesto shows all the possibilities of assistance, in areas that we see are important.

I agree totally, that many factors come into not having an accident, and other and, 'many' (sometimes similar) factors, also come into play, when you do have an accident.
I do think that much more needs to be looked into prior to the accident too, all factors, surrounding that person too. This however is likely to seriously infringe people's privacy. A small inattention accident, that resulted in knowing what you have done for a week, might be excessive to say the least. But a busy and stressful life prior to a bad and fatal overtaking accident, may show important factors that are never currently recorded or even looked into. So how can we be really sure that we are looking at the proper causation factors. Are there factors not yet accounted for ?

I still believe that better, ongoing and readily accessible advice, is an excellent place to start. Plus when Paul was looking at the education versus lack of extra education, although there was initially an increase in driver over ability and they drove at about 10% more than they were possibly capable of, their accidents were however being avoided because of the extra training. i have not seen any recent figures for this and it would be great to look into them.
(I think we may have to split this topic off ) .....

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Airborne transport and road transport are certainly not entirely comparable. However, since I see it as a fun challenge from which something could be learned, here goes anyway.

Pilots require several hundred hours of training. Thus, it's a safe guess that, as a population, pilots are better trained. It's probably also a safe guess that a greater percentage of pilots find that being a pilot is its own reward - otherwise you'd see it as wasting outrageous amounts of time and money, instead of investing in yourself. Further, the checks placed on the process which certifies pilots 'fit to fly' seems to be nearly perfectly effective at weeding out reckless, drunken, and otherwise inherently unfit pilots.

I am sure, however, that the same could only be said of drivers, and drivers' education, if one were willing to light one's pants on fire. There is undoubtedly much to improve in this area, on several different fronts.

Since I'm not a pilot, I can't pretend to know, but I feel safe guessing that, once fully licensed, aviation rules and regs don't vex, distract, pester, or menace pilots with nearly the same frequency or severity as Vehicle and Traffic Laws do most drivers.

You mention a reward incentive. I have no clue what incentives pilots may or may not get for doing what they do well, apart from those intrinsic (how many people remember a round of applause upon landing?). Only recently did two insurance companies (AllState, and I forget the other) offer rewards "in the form of a discount for every six month period that you don't get in an accident". If anyone thinks this is a bad idea, speak up now; I'm always eager to learn something new. (I doubt that most drivers are eager to learn something new, excepting most of those here ...)

Flights, like driven journeys, are also usually successful. They probably tend to the most egregious errors, and probably cause other problems in the process. However, being both cost- and safety- conscious, it may also be a safe guess to say that their attempts to improve cause significantly fewer and smaller new problems to pop up.
Lately, if ever, could road, vehicle, and traffic safety be described as having the same spirit of 'gai shan' (in the Chinese sense)as air traffic safety, without one's pants spontaneously combusting?

(It may also be worth noticing that several airlines are flirting with bankruptcy, whereas I strongly doubt that the road, vehicle, and traffic industries are in danger of same ...)

I know that I've taken so many guesses here, my pants may be getting a little warmer, but I doubt any of them were bad ones. Let me know if I'm wrong?

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

Please don't misunderstand me folks, I am not advocating aviation-style licencing or regulation for the roads, but suggesting that we borrow from methods of accident reporting and causality investigation more commonly seen in the aviation world, where 0% accidents is the goal, however difficult it may seem to achieve.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.