Safe Speed Forums

Er, no we don't.

In medical terms, tunnel vision is the loss of peripheral vision with retention of central vision, resulting in a constricted circular tunnel-like field of vision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_vision

If you think you've got tunnel vision I'd get an eye test if I were you, you'll probably lose your license if you have.

I can happily ride at 20 mph on my pushbike looking 45 degrees down and be aware of what's on the road way ahead, it's not my ideal riding style sure, but the point is I can see perceive the road ahead and know what's there, and if I can't know what's there then I slow right down.

If you find that checking your speedo is so distracting even at 20mph I'd recommend you slow down more still.

Oh I can't be bothered he is rapidly showing that he has an IQ slightly lower than a baked bean, and continues to cherry pick meaningless points without researching, so I guess that means he has no valid argument.

The problem is that there is a history of said NIMBYs complaining about "speeding" on their road, when what they actually object to is the presence of the traffic full stop. This is borne out by the fact that when such NIMBYs complain and speed surveys are conducted on the roads in question, the result is almost always that there isn't a "speeding problem" after all. The NIMBYs are viewed (IMHO correctly) as somewhat selfish for choosing a house on a through road, then deciding that they don't like the (completely legitimate) presence of the traffic on that road, and consequently inventing a "speeding problem" so as to delay and frustrate the drivers, presumably in the hope that they'll find another route (and if not, at least they'll have been punished for daring to use the NIMBYs' private road).

If you're sensitive to traffic noise, get a house on a cul-de-sac. It's as simple as that. Trying to stop drivers using roads which have been through routes for decades is not an option. (The only time I would have sympathy with residents on through routes regarding traffic noise is if traffic levels grew significantly after someone had moved into a house, but when that does happen it's usually as a result of the local authority closing off other roads because of NIMBYs elsewhere. Which I think highlights the selfishness of NIMBYs very nicely. Not only are they placing their needs above those of drivers using through routes, they're doing the same thing to other residents elsewhere.)

_________________
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)

Yup, what he said! That was the point I was trying to make. Yes residents should be consulted, but they have no expertise in the field of traffic safety and have a strong bias for ulterior motives (eg reduce traffic noise - increase property value) so the residents opinion should be last on the list.



Have you actually tried a hazzard perception test? It really is comical, click on a mouse randomly and you'll probably get a high score. It would be more useful, if like the advanced test you had to identify each hazzard as it develops and tell your instructor in a commentary what each hazzard is and how you are dealing with it.

I had no idea that "slowing down" was a way of compensating for being distracted! This could have many uses. I think I'll start browsing Safe Speed on my laptop while driving at 5mph...do you think that's slow enough weepej? In any event, presumably you think it would be safer than driving at 35 in a 30 with my full attention on the road.

_________________
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)

If you remove speed as for arguments sake a casual factor you could not have cars moving full stop, so if we are to have vehicles moving we have to accept movement as a given. The only other effect is severity.

Of the two drivers I mentioned one was same age as me mid thirties, one was fiftyish, I suspect that it is a blind acceptance of the poor but emotive message that has lead to the reasoning speed = bad, within or less than the limit = safe. As to when they passed their tests I don't know.

I would agree with you about any driver that tries to impose their idea of safe driving by belligerant or aggresive behaviour. I mentioned the very slow end of the spectrum as it was IMO more relevant to the argument of slowing down equating to better safety. As a side track their have been official attempts to encourage this behaviour with Pace / Safety car Schemes Have a look here: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=5796&hilit=pace+car+doncaster and here http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6081&hilit=pace+car+doncaster

There are major flaws, yet there is little real movement at rectifying these flaws, and at the end of the day the effectiveness is probably about the same as the old style verbal test but that didn't cost additional money to take.

I have no problem with making junctions easier for pedestrians to cross / use, however, I was involved in a scheme for TfL that had 80 sites under it, part of the scheme after upgrades also altered light phasings specifically to cause congestion in he hope that it would 'enourage' drivers to use public transport.

When I pointed out that there was a fair chance that some phasings would actually lead to drivers jumping lights, some of the phasings were dropped. There was no rational for helping pedestrians because there were no upgrades planned for pedestrians at these junctions.

Good question, I wouldn't be quite so anti camera if the money went into a road safety budget to pay for things such as improvements for pedestrian / road safety, extra traffic officers, better education campaigns, but it doesn't it goes into HMG's 'pot' to be spent on anything other than road safety, the motorist is a good source of revenue to help balance the books. If we were to use the money from fines purely on road safety measures we would be in a damm sight better state than we are now. Unfortunately it is not happening, Where I live in Essex, the ramping up of speed cameras was used a rational for reductions in the amount f traffic officers on the roads, so if eanything your suggestion of smacking a camera in is actually REDUCING the number of officers on the roads.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

Cul-de-sacs.. You get L driver practising reversing in them .. Or kids playing footy.

Nothing wrong with either activity - but some find it "disturbs their peace" all the same..




But when we buy a house - we should be able to note all the negatives as well as positives Pal of mine lives near a railway line. I found it noisy personally - but he's "used to it"


Likewise relative's pal who lives near a wind farm. They are not exactly "silent" when working. He has got used to the "whine in the background" - but not the "view" from last time we chatted


But all the same - we know what we are buying and when they send notice of any plans - we home ownners and residents then should make views known to the planners. (If it a green thing though,.,,




Ah.. it's being changed though - the new candidates will be expected to use initiative and drive "independently" for a part of the test. I think this rubric will help on the basic foundations of the "clicky test" which I agree does not quite fit the bill and we found that it's very possible to train learners to click the right hazard after a day's play. It's why the Mad Cats now encourage their kids to be "back seat drivers" They ask them to look out for all potential hazards and twazaks . They turn it into a game on long journeys - which means their youngest sons are in direct competition with everyone - even me

However, what I found quite amazing was on comment by their youngest boy now aged 8 years (and addicted to ice cream) when he was in a car with me. He saw a car approaching and said he would bet me an ice cream that he would turn without indicating or looking. He said this just as I was easing off as I had also formed this same impression. He did indeed.. fortunately not into anything. But I did ask this child what made him think so.. and he merely said it's road position - it looked like it was going to turn right He saw what I saw at the same second I'd noted it.

So .. maybe just making kids aware and turning it into some "fun game on a routine family journey" can make a long journey less boring for the kids and get some ideas of safety led behaviour in place before they reach 17-18 years. Have to say - those Mad Cats have a way of dealing with kids which I do envy.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

So when are the Mad Cats going to start making this course available to the public?

Kids who know this stuff before they hit puberty are going to be much better drivers, plus their attitudes about driving will also be better formed, and possibly less likely to be hoons.

_________________
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

Ach.. I think all parents can do this naturally. It a bit like playing the "count the steps" when teaching them to speak und count.. (I had better not go into "reading" as it take them "years to recover" from my accent They speak English like Ted .. but I tried to teach to read und they thought the written word pronounced as I said it .. It was quite surreal when they reached proper school by all accounts ..


But basically.. you you just "play with them" und get them to "drive with you"

There all sorts of ways to get them to start noticing .. from simple "count the number of red cars" or "new number plates" as toddlers then getting them to play "spot the numpty" und so on und so on .. till you get to a COAST-like skill starting up .. und we found they were about 8-10 when this started to manifest as firm foundation to build on..




Ach.. it funny because what we said about alcohol und booze on a forum .. now seem to be in press under "Government guidelines for parents"

We more or less mentioned that bringing up kittens to accept drink as something to have normally on table und quaff with food ist better than making it appear "naughty" or promoting "not good time had unless blotto und sick"

I think then .. it still parental guidance which matter... und I think we need to go back to common sense basic values on many education issues - with help for parents in general . They do appear to be doing so for teachers .. with a more traditional approach to learning times tables und reading skills. But off-tpic aside - "targets!" seem to be the jinx on progress...

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

I think it is misguided and fueled by the death of a child and a kind of sympathetic hysteria. Peoples efforts could `be better spent following a different course.

Haven't looked at the newspaper article ,BUT I warrant ,we'll not find the reason WHY Connor Graham was ALONE & UNSUPERVISED ON A PUBLIC HIGHWAY .Question I ask -Why was a two year old allowed out on his own .

Not so long ago ,in an estate near me ,a two year old had a narrow escape - he walked (or toddled ) out of the front door ,out of the garden ,through the gate and into a main through road for the estate . The parents immediatly screamed for humps /bumps and cameras .No one thought to ask why the kid could get out ,why the gate was not shut /fitted with a closure device ,or why the doorways were not fitted with child gates .No doubt the house ,if checked would not have had stair gates .

Similar case - same reason - BAD PARENTING (IMHO).

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

I agree botach

Not more than 5 miles from me a 3 year old drowned in a neighbours garden pond sadly.

However, if he'd got out into a road instead and got run over, doubtless a speed camera would soon have been erected and the driver held entirely culpable followed by an endless succession of other 'irresponsible drivers' breaking a newly inforced 20mph limit.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.htm ... _a_source=

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Poor parenting maybe, but "there but for the grace of God go I" (and, I suspect, a great many other parents)!

I like to think of myself as a good parent - but I've had the same thing happen - three small kids to look after, playing in the garden, one finds a small gap in the hedge and while my back's turned for a minute stopping one of the others from splashing it's sibling, makes his escape into the road. Fortunately, we live in the back end of nowhere and the miscreant was rapidly aprehended with no harm done.

...but it could have been very different!

Im a dad Mole and when my two were 1 and 3 or 2 and 4 I made sure they couldnt get through holes cos I'd fix the holes. I lived for a time in town and for a time in the country when they were young, they didnt play where there was a road threat as I saw it as my duty to eliminate threats as much as poss rather than take the risk and fall back on the old 'turned my back for one minute and ...' And if someone mentions cotton wool,dont go there , you would be completely mistaken. If you are offended then its just an opinion without kid gloves as is my opinion that this child was killed by neglect in one way or another but you wont see the right kind of campaign to prevent the next one.Kids are neglected every day by thousands of mums and dads, you see them all the time leaving school wandering down the path two or three young kids messing around while mum/dad has to have that all important texting session or phone call along with the urgent fag they have to smoke, chatting to the kids about road dangers and how to properly cross the road is not as important and they can always fall back on...'I turned my back for a second'......then they can sue the driver and start a campaign to reduce the speed to 10mph so they can enjoy their fag and phone call in peace as well as reading about themselves in the paper. Thats just one example of neglect, its a cultural problem, all too many parents have more important things in their life than good parenting to be getting on with, yet shouldnt that be the TOP priority at ALL times in any parents life.If I am having a conversation of importance (and most are) with my kids and the phone rings I ignore it. How many of you parents have ever done something as simple as that? Bringing kids up is a priority responsibility not secondry or less.I could go on this subject for hours cos I think most parents of recent generations are clueless and selfish and its reflected in the society we have.

I know what you mean Mole, as a father myself. Even when you are supervising them properly, at times they can be like trying to hold onto a wet fish with soapy hands. But I also agree with Herbie.

I know it's been said many times before but it's more the way in which today's blame culture puts the burden of responsibility completely on the shoulders of the driver.

If I hit a child at 20 or 15 or 10mph I'm sure the finger would still be pointing at me. Exactly at what low limit does it not become my fault? My guess is never. So if we draw it to its natural conclusion, we may as well grass over every road and abandon all vehicles because no speed is safe and there's always a chance a child may dash out in front of you and get killed or hurt.

I'm not trying to be factitious but it reminds me of the many things I have witnessed which are not the answer to a real problem. As a recent example: In my work, once upon a time one person, a clinician, was held at a patient's home by their family until certain demands were met. As a result a 'buddy' system was devised so that if someone isn't back on time their buddy calls them to see if all's well.

It's so flawed it's untrue, but it doesn't matter. All that matters is that something is being seen to be done.

No-one dares say anything of course for fear of being shot down in flames, or not being a team player, for this 'wonderful' idea. This in principle, IMHO, is what is so wrong with our society in general today.

Wouldn't happen in Germany. I'm sure if you came up with a sucky idea there you'd be told in no uncertain terms.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

The childs mother (maybe) replied to comments on this subject at the start.
Below:

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

I’m sure no-one here for a minute would be so heartless as to suggest that all parents can keep their children out of harms way all of the time, but where do you draw the line when it comes to driving? Maybe a blanket 5mph in all residential areas regardless of: night or day, parked cars or open road, dark and rainy or bright and sunny, uphill or downhill?

The danger here is that it comes across as insensitive, especially when someone has lost a loved one, not to agree with radical and dumb legislation. The reason I stick my neck out is because in the long term you are actually killing more people if you don’t address the real problem and grab the emotional thistle of such tragedies full-on! I don’t want another child to get killed any more than that poor mother does believe it or not!

But it’s sheer madness to keep putting the emphasis on speed when the focus should be on better driving. Hitler himself would be proud of just how effective the Speed Kills propaganda has rallied everyone to fever pitch. I would have infinitely more respect for it if was correctly named ‘Wrong speed kills’. How does a speed camera get drunk or uninsured drivers and the plethora of other anti-social driving maladies?

I’ve said it before but if they wanted to get closer to the problem they would do better to ask insurance companies. They know who the safer drivers are but who’s asking them? Certainly not any pro speed camera lobby.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

That data is skewed; 'speeding' and the points accrued thereby would have to be adjusted out of the equations.

Remember, insurance companies purchase radar and laser guns 'out of pocket' for use by so-called 'law' enforcement. The insurance company gets back at least ten times its initial outlay from increases in premiums due to additional points over the course of a year, while the agency operating the gun - for free - sits back, shoots fish in a barrel, and collects thousands in fines daily.

(Don't forget, the comapnies that manufacture radar and laser guns also manufacture detectors of same ... I wonder if they also make GPS nav systems ... ?)

The insurance companies must be glistening in anticipation of lower speed limits ...

_________________
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

Ah, sorry Rush. We may be a cross pursposes, I think, but I see your point. I meant, and perhaps should have said, car insurance companies.

Over here there's a car insurer, Swinton, who anounced last year that there are so many drivers now with points for speeding on their licences that they are not going to load your insurance for it.

They know who is having the accidents; they know who the risk-takers and bad drivers are - their very business depends on it.

Yet every year, (year in, year out), I still pay upwards of £400 for eveyone elses mistakes with my full NCD. (I'm sure the fire and theft is a fraction of the whole sum)

So they know how safe I am, they should do after 30+ years, and they have effectively said they are more concerned with safety than speeders, but someone still has to pick up the tab right?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Great points and sadly Im not immune to influence of blame culture as you mentioned earlier I find it hard not to rush in when all arround me are rushing to get the best seat.