Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Dec 08, 2019 19:10

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:02 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
fixitsan wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
fixitsan wrote:
To that I can merely say that you have still not suggested an alternative to education by dreaming. What practical method do you suppose we could use ?

[...]

I have accepted there could be a case for better education where there is a suggestion of suitable methods of education. I merely asked, three times now, what those education methods might be. To say I am wriggling out of something is to say that you recognise wriggling and practice it too. If you aren't trying to escape your own suggestion then carry it through to the point of making a practical suggestion to me abotu the types of education whcih will alleviate us of the accidetns we make for ourselves as a result of not being educated.


You're not paying proper attention. Are you a so-called 'road safety professional' by any chance? If you are I'm here to tell you that you are probably infected by a wholly false dogma.



Oh for goodness sake, it isn't rocket science.
I have asked
"What would be better in terms of education"
You reply with career advice ?

I can only conculde you don't have a clue, you just want to keep your cause at the front....fine, but it is easy to see through it.
There isn't a worse road safety issue in Britain than in the rest of Europe, and if anything we are about the best there is in terms of deaths per billion miles travelled.

I'm not a road safety professional. I am a bloke on the street, trying to make sense of the fact that when you see from statistics that we are doing a great job at being safe drivers, someone among our ranks start saying we're one of the worst. 17th worst in fact.

If Lewis Hamilton moves up next year from 2nd place world ranking to first, and the field is made up of 20 cars he has improved by 5% , true ?
And if one of the backmarkers, say the driver in 20th place this year moves up to 16th next year he has improved by 20%, true ?
But by your accounting the backmarker has the greatest rate of improvement so therefore he is doing better than Lewis Hamilton.
There's only one problem there, if the backmarker was better than Lewis Hamilton how come he isn't first ?

This is all very very simple maths at the end of the day. The lower the rate of deaths per billion miles the safer the roads are.

Like I say , it isn't rocket science, we've been ranked in the top five safest countries in terms of deaths per billion miles, for literally years. How is that bad ?


You're just a troll aren't you?

You ask questions and ignore the answers.

You're wasting my time. No further replies from me.

Trolling is against forum rules. If you continue you may be banned.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:27 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
Who was it that said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics"?

We all need to be careful when quoting stats but I mentioned a long time ago here at SS the need to be weary too of experimenters bias.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimenter%27s_bias

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 13:09 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
fixitsan wrote:
That's simply not true at all.
I merely asked if speed cameras were causing road safety issues where was the proof of that. You immediately chose to turn things around, and that was after accusing me of wriggling out of a question ! That's a fine way to carry on, lead by example and all that.

By reiterating your improper assumption you have merely avoided telling me how many deaths ahve been caused by cameras. If cameras are indeed dangerous , and where the clue is in the word 'dangerous', what is the danger and what is the magnitude of it ? I need to know.

How disingenuous of you. I answered your question, you didn’t respond to it. Granted it wasn’t a numerical answer but the principle was sound enough. Do you actually want a numerical answer?

Can anyone remind me what the current cumulative fatality gap is? (the gap between the long-term trend and the short term deviation). I know the answer is well into the thousands.

Let’s not forget your non-sequitur of an answer:
Lives saved = drivers passing cameras – drivers who died :nono:

fixitsan wrote:
Well clearly you need to say how cameras are dangerous, and justify that if I am to believe you. If you can't say, just say you don't know, but you won't gain any credence from merely saying there is a case which proves them, only for you to fall over when asked for the details

If you did ask then I missed it, but I don’t believe you actually did. In case you do now please read this:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sideeffects.pdf

fixitsan wrote:
I already told you which figures were wrong.

"We are one of the worst countires in Britain in terms of road safety because we have improved very little " (worded in several different ways)

I disagree.

Do you agree that measuring the number of deaths per billion miles is a fair measure to use ?

It is indeed; however, the net distance travelled in recent (5 years) isn’t increasing enough to account for the ever increasing fatality gap.
IIRC the changes are +8% over the last 5 years, + <1% over the previous year.
Besides, for decades leading up to 2000 the casualty rate was falling nicely even though the distance travelled was significantly increasing. Accounting for that greatly adds to the fatality gap trend. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

fixitsan wrote:
As long as you accept that your understanding of the trends does not even come close to saying we have a detrimental road safety issue in Britain we can at least find agreement on something

Sorry, no can do. Like I said (which you keep skipping over) we have many more ongoing improvements on top of post crash rescue and care, so as Paul already said: why aren’t we getting the benefits we are entitled to? Something somewhere has gone wrong – yes?

fixitsan wrote:
No I didn't read the link. I thought we might try this new thing called being adult and discussing through conversation in the first person.

That’s real mature! You ask for evidence, we give it to you, you don’t bother with it.

How can you have a serious debate without doing prior research?
The campaign pages exist to save people from repeating everything every time someone comes along with questions, you are no exception. Read the links.

fixitsan wrote:
All you really mean is "people should care "

That’s only part of the answer. We need to highlight the importance of caring enough to warrant acting and interacting in a socially responsible manner.

fixitsan wrote:
smeggy wrote:
Anyway, why should it be ‘our’ job to define the minutiae of a road safety policy? Paul has enough of a job highlighting the concealed flaws in the current policy, is that not enough to get some of the thousands of the paid professionals to get off their asses and act accordingly?

Now there's a fallacy if ever there was one.

Why? What type? You can’t just say it is without any form of support.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 16:42 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 16:59
Posts: 94
smeggy wrote:
fixitsan wrote:
That's simply not true at all.
I merely asked if speed cameras were causing road safety issues where was the proof of that. You immediately chose to turn things around, and that was after accusing me of wriggling out of a question ! That's a fine way to carry on, lead by example and all that.

By reiterating your improper assumption you have merely avoided telling me how many deaths ahve been caused by cameras. If cameras are indeed dangerous , and where the clue is in the word 'dangerous', what is the danger and what is the magnitude of it ? I need to know.

How disingenuous of you. I answered your question, you didn’t respond to it. Granted it wasn’t a numerical answer but the principle was sound enough. Do you actually want a numerical answer?

Can anyone remind me what the current cumulative fatality gap is? (the gap between the long-term trend and the short term deviation). I know the answer is well into the thousands.


75% of whom are killing themselves, and only by looking at the short term gap you're not being impartial , and , well, it's also a form of cherry picking isn't it ?







Let’s not forget your non-sequitur of an answer:
Lives saved = drivers passing cameras – drivers who died :nono:

fixitsan wrote:
Well clearly you need to say how cameras are dangerous, and justify that if I am to believe you. If you can't say, just say you don't know, but you won't gain any credence from merely saying there is a case which proves them, only for you to fall over when asked for the details

If you did ask then I missed it, but I don’t believe you actually did. In case you do now please read this:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sideeffects.pdf

fixitsan wrote:
I already told you which figures were wrong.

"We are one of the worst countires in Britain in terms of road safety because we have improved very little " (worded in several different ways)

I disagree.

Do you agree that measuring the number of deaths per billion miles is a fair measure to use ?



It is indeed; however, the net distance travelled in recent (5 years) isn’t increasing enough to account for the ever increasing fatality gap.
IIRC the changes are +8% over the last 5 years, + <1% over the previous year.
Besides, for decades leading up to 2000 the casualty rate was falling nicely even though the distance travelled was significantly increasing. Accounting for that greatly adds to the fatality gap trend. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

You are only able to say that as long as you have 100% faith in extrapolated mileage figures, whcih lets be honest are nowhere near reliable enoguh to make such statements. Who has been asked how many miles they travel ? Have you ? How is the mileage calculated ? Do they use the MOT mileage record ( I think that would be unreliable for various reasons) The number of cars has increased, it seems logical that the numebr of miles may well have increased too.







fixitsan wrote:
As long as you accept that your understanding of the trends does not even come close to saying we have a detrimental road safety issue in Britain we can at least find agreement on something

Sorry, no can do. Like I said (which you keep skipping over) we have many more ongoing improvements on top of post crash rescue and care, so as Paul already said: why aren’t we getting the benefits we are entitled to? Something somewhere has gone wrong – yes?


In between something being wrong and something being perfect there lies the middle ground, and that is that all of those efforts might not be able to produce further gains, they may only be able to hold the improvement at it's current rate, or in other words where the number of vehicles is increasing and the number of deaths is reasonably static at a low number then those extra efforts are doing a grand job at keeping things as good as they have been for a while







fixitsan wrote:
No I didn't read the link. I thought we might try this new thing called being adult and discussing through conversation in the first person.

That’s real mature! You ask for evidence, we give it to you, you don’t bother with it.

How can you have a serious debate without doing prior research?
The campaign pages exist to save people from repeating everything every time someone comes along with questions, you are no exception. Read the links.


It's not a question of maturity, you're asking me to believe your figures. Your figures don't tell me that a low death rate is good, like we can see for ourselves that it is good. There is an undercurrent of something else, an attitude of almost 'we won't be told what to do'.
That's no way to defeat a governemnt policy. All you need to do is ask your MP how it is that we can have such a good road safety record yet feel we are so very pressured by government to stop causing problems, problems which don't exist.

I saked my MP and he couldn't answer
"I am not sure there is a problem, or that there isn't a problem " was his reply


fixitsan wrote:
All you really mean is "people should care "

That’s only part of the answer. We need to highlight the importance of caring enough to warrant acting and interacting in a socially responsible manner.

fixitsan wrote:
smeggy wrote:
Anyway, why should it be ‘our’ job to define the minutiae of a road safety policy? Paul has enough of a job highlighting the concealed flaws in the current policy, is that not enough to get some of the thousands of the paid professionals to get off their asses and act accordingly?

Now there's a fallacy if ever there was one.

Why? What type? You can’t just say it is without any form of support.


The support of my argument is substantial.

Name one incidence of public opinion ever changing road policy. I was going to ask for ANY policy being changed by public opinion but it is clear that if you are a hunter on a horse you get extra priveldges to everyone else.

But we aren't a democratic country, so I can't see the point in trying to operate with democratic methods.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 19:58 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
fixitsan wrote:
75% of whom are killing themselves, and only by looking at the short term gap you're not being impartial , and , well, it's also a form of cherry picking isn't it ?

Are you kidding? That short-term gap is now many years in duration and has been steadily building year after year, and there’s no significant yearly fluctuation associated with it. That is a clear deviation from the trend.
For you to call it cherry picking is just laughable, especially as you tried to jump on it by claiming the levelling off is a good thing.

I think intelligent readers can make up their own mind about that one.

fixitsan wrote:
You are only able to say that as long as you have 100% faith in extrapolated mileage figures, whcih lets be honest are nowhere near reliable enoguh to make such statements.

Oh my, you get better :)
Who are you to say that? You who said (and I paraphrase):
Lives saved by cameras = drivers passing cameras – drivers who died

fixitsan wrote:
Who has been asked how many miles they travel ? Have you ? How is the mileage calculated ? Do they use the MOT mileage record ( I think that would be unreliable for various reasons) The number of cars has increased, it seems logical that the numebr of miles may well have increased too.

The number of cars has always been increasing (as has the mileage) - unless you wish to show otherwise; so what’s that go to do with it?
I don’t know how mileages are compiled. There could well be a gain error, but on its own it means nothing bacause we’re talking about the relative change in ‘traffic’. I don’t see a reason for a yearly gain error shift. Besides, there are other telltale methods like road surveys (using those strips), those little TM ANPR cameras, nationwide fuel consumption (factoring shifts in vehicle demographic) and company records.

fixitsan wrote:
In between something being wrong and something being perfect there lies the middle ground, and that is that all of those efforts might not be able to produce further gains, they may only be able to hold the improvement at it's current rate, or in other words where the number of vehicles is increasing and the number of deaths is reasonably static at a low number then those extra efforts are doing a grand job at keeping things as good as they have been for a while

Talk about missing the point. The number of vehicles have always been increasing and we had expected drop in fatality rates, so what?
Besides, didn’t you earlier say that ‘number of deaths per billion miles is a fair measure to use’ so vehicle numbers doesn’t come into it at all does it?

fixitsan wrote:
It's not a question of maturity
fixitsan one post ago, on the same issue, wrote:
I thought we might try this new thing called being adult


fixitsan wrote:
you're asking me to believe your figures.

Please show me where I asked you do to that.

fixitsan wrote:
Your figures don't tell me that a low death rate is good, like we can see for ourselves that it is good. There is an undercurrent of something else, an attitude of almost 'we won't be told what to do'.
That's no way to defeat a governemnt policy. All you need to do is ask your MP how it is that we can have such a good road safety record yet feel we are so very pressured by government to stop causing problems, problems which don't exist.

Third time’s a charm: what is the biggest killer of 16-20 year olds in the UK?

fixitsan wrote:
smeggy wrote:
fixitsan wrote:
smeggy wrote:
Anyway, why should it be ‘our’ job to define the minutiae of a road safety policy? Paul has enough of a job highlighting the concealed flaws in the current policy, is that not enough to get some of the thousands of the paid professionals to get off their asses and act accordingly?

Now there's a fallacy if ever there was one.

Why? What type? You can’t just say it is without any form of support.

The support of my argument is substantial.

:rotfl:
And how does that explain how my comment quoted just above is a ‘fallacy if ever there was one’? Really, please do walk us through it.

fixitsan wrote:
Name one incidence of public opinion ever changing road policy.

Allowing flashing lights as the sole lamps on pedal cycles. Principle proven.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/em2005/uksiem_20052559_en.pdf


Just to remind you:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sideeffects.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 23:21 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 16:59
Posts: 94
Just to remind you:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sideeffects.pdf[/quote]


1. Road safety culture damage��
Although it is not much talked about in road safety, cultural values at very much at the heart of any safety��
system. However, in industrial safety, developing and maintaining a safety culture is considered central to��
reducing risk. Unfortunately nothing in modern policy is helping to build a sound road safety culture. The��
side effects listed here are actually causing severe damage to our once good road safety culture. Our pre-��
vious good safety culture was a central component in achieving the safest roads in the world.��


Our roads are not now any more unsafe in terms of league tables of the safest nations compared to the most unsafe nations. By your own volition we must therefore still have a good safety culture if we have a good safety record.

2. Drivers' general attitude to driving is worsened.��
One of the key factors that identifies a low risk driver is having a good attitude. A good attitude comes from��
taking responsibilities seriously and goes towards allowing safe margins for error. Drivers with a good atti-��
tude learn from their mistakes and don't take safety for granted. There's a significant risk that excessive��
speed enforcement is having a general negative effect on drivers' attitudes.��


What is the form of this risk ? Which drivers are being forced into bad attitudes because they are less likley to be able to exceed an agreed speed limit ?

Systematic changes in priority��
3. Reduced roads traffic policing��
Road traffic policing has been in steady decline in the speed camera era. It is sometimes argued that��
speed cameras have nothing to do with the accepted decline. We blame policy and point out that the same��
policy makers have caused the rise in cameras and the decline in roads traffic policing.��


One function of traffic officers is speed limit enforcement. Speed cameras are far superior in that role than traffic police officers. Is this bad ?


4. Speed management replaces road user quality management��
The advent of speed cameras steadily taking the place of traffic police has had the inevitable effect of��
changing the balance refined over the years by competent police forces to place greater emphasis on��
speed limit compliance.��


This is true. but your statement is neutral . Traffic cameras do a better job of speed management than traffic officers. Traffic officers are not responsible for road user quality management, normally.

5. Speed enforcement replaces sound road safety engineering.��
Slapping a camera up was almost the Pavlovian response to a couple of accidents in the same stretch of��
road. What used to happen pre-camera era – and what must happen again as we recover – is that road��
engineers examine the root cause of the accident or hazard and orchestrate a means to reduce/eliminate��
the hazard or make it much more visible.��


About 75% of all accidents are cause by human error. I agree that engineers can reduce the probability of poor road design and signage causing some instances of driver error accidents, but there is nowhere near enough evidence to move towards anything resembling proof, not that I know of.



6. Risk Compensation 1 - motorists��
Drivers may follow closer or drive more aggressively to preserve personal subjective risk levels when��
forced to travel at a speed significantly lower than their optimum safe speed of progress for the conditions..��


The author's suggestion is that drivers deliberately and willfully drive closer or in a more dangerous manner in order to improve their safety. This does not seem to be a logical approach and the assumption seems to be that the majority of drivers are mentally defective. This might concur with the 75% who cause accidents.

7. Risk Compensation 2 - motorists��
Drivers may pay ‘just enough’ attention to preserve subjective risk levels at any speed. If speeds are lower,��
then attention is lower. This is very dangerous if it is punctuated by periods of complete inattention.


This statement appears to be nothing more than guesswork



8. Risk compensation 3 – motorists and pedestrians��
Slower traffic may create an illusion of safety. This may result in lower levels of care from drivers and espe-��
cially from pedestrians.��



Guesswork


9. Stimulation effect��
Less stimulation for drivers (lower work rates / lower information rates) leads to more sleepiness and poorer��
concentration.��


Therefore periods of attention caused by the presence of cameras creates much needed interuptioins which break up the spells of susceptibility to tiredness and increase attention for a while


10. Longer exposure to accident risk due to longer journey times.��
Some accident risk on the roads is time-based. Where journeys take longer, the time exposed to danger is��
increased. This effect must be quantified and allowed for. It is especially relevant for "fell asleep at the��
wheel" type accidents, which are likely to be more prevalent due to reduced stimulation..��


Where the argument is that journey times are longer the assumption must be that it is a result of speeds being lower. However there appears to be a lack of proof that slower speeds carry either equal or greater risks. Tis would be required in order for the overall risk condition to be increased.


Chris


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 23:55 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
My what a change of emphasis that was!
I can only assume that your original concern has been addressed, especially as you’ve been given some links.


I can’t speak for Paul’s work, but this is how I view it:

fixitsan wrote:
1

Our roads are not now any more unsafe in terms of league tables of the safest nations compared to the most unsafe nations. By your own volition we must therefore still have a good safety culture if we have a good safety record.

No they’re not. Your claim of this has been disproved many a time, without counter argument I might add.

fixitsan wrote:
2

What is the form of this risk ? Which drivers are being forced into bad attitudes because they are less likley to be able to exceed an agreed speed limit ?

Driver’s judgement skill, and desire for, are being eroded because of the forced application of unnecessarily low limits.

fixitsan wrote:
3

One function of traffic officers is speed limit enforcement. Speed cameras are far superior in that role than traffic police officers. Is this bad ?

Absolutely it is bad!

Cameras only detect those who exceed the posted limit – assuming the offender is an otherwise law-abiding citizen. Real criminals can go about their anti-social business with impunity because they will take steps to ensure they evade the penalty.
Traffic officers can detect those going to fast for the conditions, as well as a multitude of other sins like drink driving, any form of aggressive driving, ignoring any other traffic laws – regardless of whether the driver is ‘untouchable’ or not.

fixitsan wrote:
4

This is true. but your statement is neutral . Traffic cameras do a better job of speed management than traffic officers. Traffic officers are not responsible for road user quality management, normally.

Incorrect. Covered in 3. Nice weasel word added on the end there!

fixitsan wrote:
5

About 75% of all accidents are cause by human error. I agree that engineers can reduce the probability of poor road design and signage causing some instances of driver error accidents, but there is nowhere near enough evidence to move towards anything resembling proof, not that I know of.

Conspicuity of hazards, removal of hazards, street furniture for pedestrians?

The speed camera closest to me (Anglesea Road, I can’t be accused of cherry picking) went up without any other engineering works. There is a railing in the central reservation between the dual carriageway, the reservation is less than 1 metre wide. There is a car park one side facilitating a swimming pool on the other. The railing is just low enough to get over, but high enough to cause great difficulty – especially to children. The incidents of children I have seen negotiating that railing (seen with my own eyes) will scare the daylights out of anyone. There is a pedestrian crossing about 80 meters away. So how about making the railing higher? (or lower?)

The second nearest camera (Mile End road) doesn’t fair much better. There have been multiple pedestrian fatalities, not surprising given the 7 lanes that have to be crossed, even though there is a pedestrian crossing facility only meters away.

fixitsan wrote:
6. Risk Compensation 1

The author's suggestion is that drivers deliberately and willfully drive closer or in a more dangerous manner in order to improve their safety. This does not seem to be a logical approach and the assumption seems to be that the majority of drivers are mentally defective. This might concur with the 75% who cause accidents.

I admit to not understanding that myself.

fixitsan wrote:
7. Risk Compensation 2

This statement appears to be nothing more than guesswork

Nope. The M1 roadworks is a great example. Mile after mile after mile, at what used to be 40mph, of no arousal; this is fatal during darkness. DfT data for Sleep Related Crashes points to such lack of arousal to be a contributing factor for 17% of all crashes (link). Forcing people to go slower, for longer, especially at below reasonable driving speeds, won’t help will it?

fixitsan wrote:
8. Risk compensation 3

Guesswork

It is a logical argument. Would you use additional care if crossing an NSL dual carriageway?
Would pedestrians ever walk out into that kind of road without looking? Do many bother looking when in a city? :roll:

fixitsan wrote:
Stimulation effect

Therefore periods of attention caused by the presence of cameras creates much needed interuptioins which break up the spells of susceptibility to tiredness and increase attention for a while

TRL595 would disagree with you.

fixitsan wrote:
10. Longer exposure to accident risk due to longer journey times.

Where the argument is that journey times are longer the assumption must be that it is a result of speeds being lower. However there appears to be a lack of proof that slower speeds carry either equal or greater risks. Tis would be required in order for the overall risk condition to be increased.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/arousal.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 00:44 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
smeggy wrote:
My what a change of emphasis that was!


Yep. When one door is closed to a troll, they look for another. I'm unimpressed to say the least. I've seen it all before.

Where are the people who should be able to muster an honest argument?

smeggy wrote:
fixitsan wrote:
6. Risk Compensation 1

The author's suggestion is that drivers deliberately and willfully drive closer or in a more dangerous manner in order to improve their safety. This does not seem to be a logical approach and the assumption seems to be that the majority of drivers are mentally defective. This might concur with the 75% who cause accidents.

I admit to not understanding that myself.


side effects document wrote:
6. Risk Compensation 1 - motorists
Drivers may follow closer or drive more aggressively to preserve personal subjective risk levels whenforced to travel at a speed significantly lower than their optimum safe speed of progress for the conditions.


This is about drivers preserving 'comfortable' risk levels. Once the speed has been changed by policy intervention, closer following or more aggressive driving may be subconsciously employed to reset subjective risk levels to previous values.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 09:21 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 16:59
Posts: 94
smeggy wrote:
My what a change of emphasis that was!
I can only assume that your original concern has been addressed, especially as you’ve been given some links.

I gave up waiting to hear if even a single person was willing to provide me with practical ways to reduce the accident rate. But I am not surprised by this, we don't actually have a road safety problem in the first place




I can’t speak for Paul’s work, but this is how I view it:

fixitsan wrote:
1

Our roads are not now any more unsafe in terms of league tables of the safest nations compared to the most unsafe nations. By your own volition we must therefore still have a good safety culture if we have a good safety record.

No they’re not. Your claim of this has been disproved many a time, without counter argument I might add.



My claim that the accident rate in the UK is one of the lowest in Europe is based on official figures and is backed up in statements by Safespeed. We have about the lowest number of accidents per billion miles of almost any other country. If you have proof which shows otherwise please post it






fixitsan wrote:
2

What is the form of this risk ? Which drivers are being forced into bad attitudes because they are less likley to be able to exceed an agreed speed limit ?

Driver’s judgement skill, and desire for, are being eroded because of the forced application of unnecessarily low limits.

As you admit, that is just your own interpretation. Where the speed is lower but the traffic density is high isn't the attention required to negotiate a road increased above one where the limit is high but density is low ? Or do you think that a baseline of ability exists and if you have to operate below that limit then you feel you are not driving well enough ?



fixitsan wrote:
3

One function of traffic officers is speed limit enforcement. Speed cameras are far superior in that role than traffic police officers. Is this bad ?

Absolutely it is bad!

Cameras only detect those who exceed the posted limit – assuming the offender is an otherwise law-abiding citizen. Real criminals can go about their anti-social business with impunity because they will take steps to ensure they evade the penalty.
Traffic officers can detect those going to fast for the conditions, as well as a multitude of other sins like drink driving, any form of aggressive driving, ignoring any other traffic laws – regardless of whether the driver is ‘untouchable’ or not.

Is this based on an assumption that 'real criminals' will not slow down when they see a police car ?




fixitsan wrote:
4

This is true. but your statement is neutral . Traffic cameras do a better job of speed management than traffic officers. Traffic officers are not responsible for road user quality management, normally.

Incorrect. Covered in 3. Nice weasel word added on the end there!


Where road user quality management is meant to mean the driving skill and testing thereof of drivers, the police play no part in this in the UK. We are not tested by police examiners. This is how I interpret 'road user quality management'. The only function the police can perform to produce apparent improvement is to punish. I thought you were all about education and didnt consider the fact that you may have thought that law enforcement was a possible method of eductaion. Is that your true position ?

I added the word 'normally', because normally police do not get invovled in any way in improving road user quality management, they certainly aren't involved on a day to day basis at driver testing stations or in the instruction of the majority of people. If you disagree , please explain what methods the police use to improve driver quality.

I'm surprised to think that the police ought to be involved in improving driver quality. Their job is mainly to report people who break laws and bring them to justice, they don't normally get involved in the teaching of the laws, but then again why should they ? They have enough to do already and don't need to be lumbered with the role of teachers too. What would happen if that became an official rule and then soem scrote decided that he would ignore his police education ? It would be worse for the police if they became educators too







fixitsan wrote:
5

About 75% of all accidents are cause by human error. I agree that engineers can reduce the probability of poor road design and signage causing some instances of driver error accidents, but there is nowhere near enough evidence to move towards anything resembling proof, not that I know of.


Conspicuity of hazards, removal of hazards, street furniture for pedestrians?

The speed camera closest to me (Anglesea Road, I can’t be accused of cherry picking) went up without any other engineering works. There is a railing in the central reservation between the dual carriageway, the reservation is less than 1 metre wide. There is a car park one side facilitating a swimming pool on the other. The railing is just low enough to get over, but high enough to cause great difficulty – especially to children. The incidents of children I have seen negotiating that railing (seen with my own eyes) will scare the daylights out of anyone. There is a pedestrian crossing about 80 meters away. So how about making the railing higher? (or lower?)


You don't have any comment to make on the relevance of enforcing speed limits on a road which is proving difficult to negotiate for children ? I acknowledge you are making a point to enforce your view, but why ignore the obvious too ?






The second nearest camera (Mile End road) doesn’t fair much better. There have been multiple pedestrian fatalities, not surprising given the 7 lanes that have to be crossed, even though there is a pedestrian crossing facility only meters away.


I have no details about those incidents and must only guess about them, through lack of any other information.
A seven lane road is difficult to negotiate. you would think there would be a pedestrian criossing nearby ? I have had to assuem that people are not using the crossing which is installed. Is that the case ?





fixitsan wrote:
6. Risk Compensation 1

The author's suggestion is that drivers deliberately and willfully drive closer or in a more dangerous manner in order to improve their safety. This does not seem to be a logical approach and the assumption seems to be that the majority of drivers are mentally defective. This might concur with the 75% who cause accidents.

I admit to not understanding that myself.


It just seems like a collection of words that had to be wedged in somewhere



fixitsan wrote:
7. Risk Compensation 2

This statement appears to be nothing more than guesswork

Nope. The M1 roadworks is a great example. Mile after mile after mile, at what used to be 40mph, of no arousal; this is fatal during darkness. DfT data for Sleep Related Crashes points to such lack of arousal to be a contributing factor for 17% of all crashes (link). Forcing people to go slower, for longer, especially at below reasonable driving speeds, won’t help will it?


No it actually is guesswork.

Drivers[color=red] may pay ‘just enough’ attention to preserve subjective risk levels at any speed. If speeds are lower,��
then attention is lower. This is very dangerous if it is punctuated by periods of complete inattention.��


The use of the word 'may' suggests nothing more certain than a remote possibility. The quoting of official figures at this point seems erroneous. Are you not quoting official figures only when they agree with your point of view ?[/color]

fixitsan wrote:
8. Risk compensation 3

Guesswork

It is a logical argument. Would you use additional care if crossing an NSL dual carriageway?
Would pedestrians ever walk out into that kind of road without looking? Do many bother looking when in a city? :roll:

Unfortunately one high profile case yesterday showed a young lad died yesterday from crossing a NSL road. Simply tragic. Despite being educated never to do that. Despite the obvious risks. He must have crossed the path of many slower moving vehicles in his lifetime too.





fixitsan wrote:
Stimulation effect

Therefore periods of attention caused by the presence of cameras creates much needed interuptioins which break up the spells of susceptibility to tiredness and increase attention for a while

TRL595 would disagree with you.


Where are we now then ? Speed cameras causing stimulation effects does not improve safety, and a lack of stimulation does not improve safety but worsens it. We seem to be moving towards a 'not driving' attitude instead.





fixitsan wrote:
10. Longer exposure to accident risk due to longer journey times.

Where the argument is that journey times are longer the assumption must be that it is a result of speeds being lower. However there appears to be a lack of proof that slower speeds carry either equal or greater risks. Tis would be required in order for the overall risk condition to be increased.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/arousal.html


"Lots of drivers report that driving slower causes them to feel sleepy "
Who conducted the study, and where could I go to view the results of that study ? Was it conducted fairly ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 09:31 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 13:54
Posts: 1711
Location: NW Kent
SafeSpeed wrote:

This is about drivers preserving 'comfortable' risk levels. Once the speed has been changed by policy intervention, closer following or more aggressive driving may be subconsciously employed to reset subjective risk levels to previous values.


I see a road which has been re-engineered to make it 'safer' and just think that what has been done has in fact made it more dangerous in order to slow people down. This I think would be the complement to the effect as above?

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 09:33 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 16:59
Posts: 94
SafeSpeed wrote:
smeggy wrote:
My what a change of emphasis that was!


Yep. When one door is closed to a troll, they look for another. I'm unimpressed to say the least. I've seen it all before.


And you must have ignored it then too.
What is wrong with somebody asking you to suggest ways we can all be safer on the road ? I say this because it seems to be being argued that road safety is a major problem in the UK, when all the evidence I see contradicts that. I only asked you to say what the problem was, and posted a thread in the 'Improving road safety' section assuming that discussing road safety improvements would be acceptable. Is this an open forum or not, can I ask you for your ideas on improving road safety in an 'improving road safety' thread. If not just say so






Where are the people who should be able to muster an honest argument?


Yes indeed. What road safety solutions do you have to offer ?






smeggy wrote:
fixitsan wrote:
6. Risk Compensation 1

The author's suggestion is that drivers deliberately and willfully drive closer or in a more dangerous manner in order to improve their safety. This does not seem to be a logical approach and the assumption seems to be that the majority of drivers are mentally defective. This might concur with the 75% who cause accidents.

I admit to not understanding that myself.


side effects document wrote:
6. Risk Compensation 1 - motorists
Drivers may follow closer or drive more aggressively to preserve personal subjective risk levels whenforced to travel at a speed significantly lower than their optimum safe speed of progress for the conditions.


This is about drivers preserving 'comfortable' risk levels. Once the speed has been changed by policy intervention, closer following or more aggressive driving may be subconsciously employed to reset subjective risk levels to previous values.



But do you have evidence of this ? is it a subjective observation ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 19:39 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
In Gear's most memorable post from the early days of this forum wrote:
OK! For the new guys and for those who need a little reminder.

C

CONCENTRATION (and it also means COURTESY AND CONSIDERATION)

I reckon concentration should be a relaxed concentration. By this I mean that if you consciously try to concentrate - you may be concentrating on what you perceive to be correct behaviour and not concentrating at all. It is the sort of concentration which you use when watching a good film - looking at the points of interest and the nuances of the plot. It is a bout leaving the worries of what to have for tea or the argument with the boss or the wife or the best pal behind and focusing on the drive and the road ahead - watching the road furniture "tell you a story of what to expect ahead".


It is about not getting carried away by your CD player playing "Born to be Wild" - loudly!

It is about refraining from eating apples whilst driving, reading maps, and arguing with passengers or on the hands free set whilst driving.


Consideration is about being understanding: the person may have just passed the test or be new to the area.

It is about accepting people do make errors and not getting worked up about it. It is about dealing with it - safely.

O

OBSERVATION

This means what it says - use sight, ears and smell.

You need to scan systematically. The road paint on the road tells you about the hazards to expect (Check out "Know Your Road Signs!" (DSA publication).

It means using mirrors. and constantly adjusting your driving (and riding if on two wheels and I do include the cyclist contingent and lurkers on here in this too )

It means looking at the road layout - continuously assessing the moving point and the limit point on the road as it unfolds ahead of you.

It means observing other traffic: the ball under the parked car, the potential chap who may open the door or just set off without the life saver glance over his shoulder (and again this applies to cyclists as they are the ones who get caught the most by this numpty error )

It means positioning for view (see Ian's excellent diagram on cornering and apex in the "Cornering" thread in the "Improve Driving" forum on this site) Positioning for view depends on circumstances at the time -but you need to ensure you can observe the antics of the driver at least two cars ahead of you!

It means keeping eyes moving and using peripheral vision.

It means being aware of that line of persons at a bus stop means bus is around here somwhere.

It means using every means of observation at your disposal.

Smell of cut grass? Council workers on the loose.

A

ANTICIPATION

More time you have to react to a hazard - the better.


It is based on your observations. Their behaviour, position, head , hand and general progress all give you clues. Never assume they will behave as you do.

Once you have observed and anticpated - you then have to plan - take control of the situation. react to the hazards ahead and defend yourself. Because "PLAN" is so difficult to define we split this as follows:

S

SPACE

This is the two second rule. You give space to the tailgater and increase your space for reactions.

It means adjusting speed to the safest one for the conditions ahead. It means reacting to what might reasonably be expected to happen and you are responding to what can be seen and what cannot be seen

It is about dropping your speed so that you can see what is happening 2- 3 vehicles ahead of you.

T

TIME

Time is linked to the above. Only a fool breaks the two second rule! It is your two second gap. It is the time you allowed for your journey. It is the time you allow for other road users in your planning and decisions based on the above OAP per "ROADCRAFT"


There are lots of variations of COAST - but these are the main ones.

I cannot stress its importance enough - and this little word forms the basis of DIS and Speed Aware courses where offered. It is a part of my training as well - and we do include elements of it in our lectures to naughty-ish drivers here.

It should have more prominence on the Partnership sites - especially thos which offer Speed Awares as alternative to points. It could help improve standards after all. It appears to work here -but then it is delivered on the spot by slightly amused BiBs.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Works for me! Works for the Mad Cats and rest of our combined families!

Works for those customers we help too!

Works for motorcyclists and pedal cyclists too. Being aware of yourself and other road users and their needs - that's real road safety!



Encapsulates entire Highway Code and RoadCraft into one easy to remember acronym :wink:

Check out his other notes. (Hendon ones)

By the way.. that guy notices everything. :yikes: He's trained up Trafpol in the course of his career to date by the way. But he's Durham based and no fan of the fixed or hidden scam either. He lives in the real world which sees the idiots who never get copped by automated means.

Odd .. but his patch prosecute statistically more for uninsured/unlicenced/careless/dangerous and have fewer incidents than elsewhere.

How?
:scratchchin:
because they fully believe in having BiB presence to cut down on all crimes. Old fashioned perhaps. But it seems to work out fine there

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 19:55 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
By the way fixit .. EU now doing much better than we are in the reducing KSI stats. They have fewer cams on aggregate but more police presence.

I would even say better training - even though both France and Germany increased the probationary period to three years and will ban automatically - any new driver who tailgates. They do have harsher penalties for tailgating overall and we've noticed even less of it over there recently.

Young drivers? Said before .. we need to cease treading on eggshells lest we "upset our young and remove them from this pedestal we appear to place them on! "

Firm discipline from the start seems to work well.. but since we removed various disciplinary measures from the schools because of what seems to be a morbid fear of "allowing children to fail in anything even though they have no aptitude for acquiring certain skills and we lead them to believe they are more competent than actual capability as a result" - we end up undermining progress and our own safety as a result. :roll:

If I judged any of our kids incompetent . then I would not be paying for any driving lessons until certain they are mature enough to be on the road. That goes for unsupervised errands on foot and on their bikes. I call it parenting. I teach them road sense, morals, ethics and pray they have some common sense too - and if I judge them competent.. then I allow some independence according to their level of maturity. :wink:

But we seem as a society to be drifting away from such responsibilites - even to making excuses for young men making suicidal flights from policemen these days. :roll:

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 21:16 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
fixitsan wrote:
smeggy wrote:
My what a change of emphasis that was!
I can only assume that your original concern has been addressed, especially as you’ve been given some links.

I gave up waiting to hear if even a single person was willing to provide me with practical ways to reduce the accident rate. But I am not surprised by this, we don't actually have a road safety problem in the first place

No you were not. How disingenuous of you!
Further, I have explained many times how your interpretation of the trends are flawed. Your continuation to stand by your interpretation, coupled with your lack of addressing my posts addressing the flaws of your interpretation, mark you as a disingenuous poster. It appears Paul assessment of you was indeed on the money.

The rest of your post is just laughable.
- Criminals don’t slow down for unmarked cars. Unmarked cars or otherwise, all police are trained to look for tell-tale signs.
- Police can and do pull drivers for dangerous driving (there’s your quality management).
- Logical reasoning is not simply ‘guesswork’.
- You completely sidestepped the point I was making about the use of the speed cameras local to me (road layout engineering).
- The recent tragic case which you conveniently cherry picked disregarding the obvious notion that it’s an under-representation. Besides, who said those children didn’t look?
- If speed cameras stimulate it is for the wrong reason – they are a distraction.
- There’s more misrepresentation with your final quote – who said there was a study?

Why on earth I should take you seriously? I’m not going to format my response for your convenience, I’ve wasted enough time composing this post.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 00:40 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 16:59
Posts: 94
Mad Moggie wrote:
By the way fixit .. EU now doing much better than we are in the reducing KSI stats. They have fewer cams on aggregate but more police presence.


Better at reducing which stats ? Do you mean the rate of improvement stat which cannot be used a as a reliable pointer towards the current figure, or the actual number of deaths per billion km's ?




I would even say better training - even though both France and Germany increased the probationary period to three years and will ban automatically - any new driver who tailgates. They do have harsher penalties for tailgating overall and we've noticed even less of it over there recently.

I would be happy to seestiffer penalties here to for people who play follow my leader








Young drivers? Said before .. we need to cease treading on eggshells lest we "upset our young and remove them from this pedestal we appear to place them on! "

Firm discipline from the start seems to work well.. but since we removed various disciplinary measures from the schools because of what seems to be a morbid fear of "allowing children to fail in anything even though they have no aptitude for acquiring certain skills and we lead them to believe they are more competent than actual capability as a result" - we end up undermining progress and our own safety as a result. :roll:


We can't expect to go back unfortunately. The new era is coming and brings with it the premise that children can grow to be what they want to be in terms of attitude towards the world. As long as they are financially active that will be good enough. Hence why we now see the statistics from government which do not call people unemployed, anymore, but 'not financially active'. There is an organisation called Common Purpose which is bringing in the first waves of 'new leaders'. Being a criminal isn't a bad thing in their organisation. Police chiefs have even made contributions towards their charity with public money. If Safespeed is registered as a charity could they hope for a contribution from the police too, I wonder ?



If I judged any of our kids incompetent . then I would not be paying for any driving lessons until certain they are mature enough to be on the road. That goes for unsupervised errands on foot and on their bikes. I call it parenting. I teach them road sense, morals, ethics and pray they have some common sense too - and if I judge them competent.. then I allow some independence according to their level of maturity. :wink:


You won't ever see tehir kids for their true abililty, that's just an unfortunate fact. Your mind still holds memories of the hopes and esteemed ambitions you held for them until they became old enoguh to hold them, and they then picked their own instead. It's good to teach them values, I won't disagree because that's something which I think we have got to maintain due to it's proven track record.

It's possibly easier to remember what to do if you rememebr the old saying , that, a boy becomes a man two years after he thinks he does and three years before his parents think he does




But we seem as a society to be drifting away from such responsibilites - even to making excuses for young men making suicidal flights from policemen these days. :roll:


Well I do think that part of the problem there is to do with the fact that they sometimes only end up doing it to make themselves feel good about themselves particularl when their mates are watching. Thisis often because they have never had anything to feel good about themselves for in the past (but not always). This might just be the reason why schools now don't insist on dictating a life direction to the students but just attempt to make them feel good about themselves now for who they are as young people in the hope that they wil not feel the need to reinforce their self image at a later date.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:21 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
I wish there were a town, a city, a country even, which would regulate all vehicles so that it was physically impossible for anyone to exceed a speed limit in any vehicle anywhere just so that it would finally lay to rest this fallacious simplistic narrow-minded argument that the reason so many people are being Killed or Seriously Injured on our roads is because “Speed Kills”.

If anyone thinks for one moment that the KSI figures would reach zero overnight because of this wonderful advance or even make the huge difference everyone has been brainwashed into thinking that speed is the root cause of all this mayhem, they are simply deluding themselves.

Unlike the government, the people I work with in the health service are genuinely passionate about reducing or ideally eliminating KSI on our roads. I’m not putting these people above anyone else but these very same healthcare professionals are also being prosecuted for the ‘heinous’ crime of speeding even though they have never been involved in any accident ever and have held a clean licence all their lives - until recent years that is.

Even the biggest ignoramus on earth should question that, or so you would think…

If we believed this wonderful new world of ‘always adhering to the speed limit’ would really result in the dawn of an era free from death and injury on our roads then we would ALL sign up for it in a heartbeat, but it’s sheer nonsense!

This new world of no-speeding would undoubtedly result in the elimination of maniacs going too fast in the wrong place/time/situation, but since these maniacs do not actually cause or constitute the bulk of KSI victims the government would have all the evidence they need, (if they choose to use it), to recognise they have got it wrong and change their motto at very long last to “Stupid Kills”.

But instead they continue to bask in the glory of their false triumph and demonise anyone who ever dares exceed a speed limit instead of the very real problems which I/we in the health service continue to deal with every single day. 

If you took down every speed sign tomorrow I doubt whether the KSI figures would change one iota! Good drivers travel at a safe speed and bad drivers don’t, regardless of a sign, it’s that simple. The good drivers help regulate the bad drivers too. A maniac can’t go too quickly past a dangerous junction or school entrance if he’s behind me I can assure you. I’m often well under a speed limit because I think it’s too dangerous to travel at the posted limit.

I believe we could completely eliminate speed limit signs without noticing much difference. A good driver instinctively knows what an appropriate safe speed is for any given situation so why do I need to know what the speed limit is and exactly what use is it to anyone? What does a speed limit do that police officers’ couldn’t do better using existing laws like dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention? Get rid of the cameras and use the money to actually police our roads with officers whom could better judge whether someone was using an appropriate speed for the conditions and the condition of the vehicle or drivers sobriety etc.

When I drive abroad I usually find myself on unfamiliar roads where sometimes I haven’t the faintest idea what the speed limit is. But I have never had an accident because I drive within my limits and with consideration for the environment I find myself in and it’s this which keeps me and others safe, not a posted speed limit.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 16:56 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9260
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
MM's post of IG's COAST , and the last piece led me to look at one of fixit's bits

Quote:
Lives saved by cameras = drivers passing cameras – drivers who died


In days of yore (when we had a first class road safety policy, as in present day Durham)
(From my observations of early days driving and the trafpols on here)
"Drivers passing cameras " would be "Drivers observed by trafpol" - which would be broken into two groups -
1) No cause to stop(i.e driving quality ok)
2) those we decide to have a chat to.

Of group 2) this would be divided into
a) those trafpol gave advice on driving standards and possibly some "acid"
b) those trafpol decided should get a financial incentive to improve.(ticket)
So the last part of the equation "drivers who died " would be very much lower as those stopped by trafpol would hopefully have been stopped in their offending tracks and at least for a short spell decided to drive safer.
What fixit and those of the camera mentality fail to realise is to quote an old proverb "A STITCH IN TIME SAVES NINE "- EXPLAIN/EDUCATE why such an act is dangerous and a lot of the time responsible drivers will comply. Then provide the means to catch and remove those that do not comply.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 17:19 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 16:59
Posts: 94
botach wrote:
MM's post of IG's COAST , and the last piece led me to look at one of fixit's bits

Quote:
Lives saved by cameras = drivers passing cameras – drivers who died


In days of yore (when we had a first class road safety policy, as in present day Durham)
(From my observations of early days driving and the trafpols on here)
"Drivers passing cameras " would be "Drivers observed by trafpol" - which would be broken into two groups -
1) No cause to stop(i.e driving quality ok)
2) those we decide to have a chat to.

Of group 2) this would be divided into
a) those trafpol gave advice on driving standards and possibly some "acid"
b) those trafpol decided should get a financial incentive to improve.(ticket)
So the last part of the equation "drivers who died " would be very much lower as those stopped by trafpol would hopefully have been stopped in their offending tracks and at least for a short spell decided to drive safer.
What fixit and those of the camera mentality fail to realise is to quote an old proverb "A STITCH IN TIME SAVES NINE "- EXPLAIN/EDUCATE why such an act is dangerous and a lot of the time responsible drivers will comply. Then provide the means to catch and remove those that do not comply.



If I could just point out the impossible logic that because I don't hold an argument against cameras to the same extent as others that I am somehow in favour of them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 17:23 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 16:59
Posts: 94
botach wrote:
MM's post of IG's COAST , and the last piece led me to look at one of fixit's bits

Quote:
Lives saved by cameras = drivers passing cameras – drivers who died


In days of yore (when we had a first class road safety policy, as in present day Durham)
(From my observations of early days driving and the trafpols on here)
"Drivers passing cameras " would be "Drivers observed by trafpol" - which would be broken into two groups -
1) No cause to stop(i.e driving quality ok)
2) those we decide to have a chat to.

Of group 2) this would be divided into
a) those trafpol gave advice on driving standards and possibly some "acid"
b) those trafpol decided should get a financial incentive to improve.(ticket)
So the last part of the equation "drivers who died " would be very much lower as those stopped by trafpol would hopefully have been stopped in their offending tracks and at least for a short spell decided to drive safer.
What fixit and those of the camera mentality fail to realise is to quote an old proverb "A STITCH IN TIME SAVES NINE "- EXPLAIN/EDUCATE why such an act is dangerous and a lot of the time responsible drivers will comply. Then provide the means to catch and remove those that do not comply.



Okay, so, lets move this argument on a step or two.

You are now a driving instructor. In the driver's seat is a young mother on her first lesson, she is filling her pants in fear and has not yet started the engine.

What sentence, or paragraph, or group of words will you now convey to her to explain that exceeding some posted speed limits is actually alright and she shouldn't worry 'if the conditions allow'

Don't you think it will be confusing ?

This is the problem with the philosophy of safe driving. It's something you can know for yourself from experience, but, simply because it came from experience means that you cannot teach it to another doesn't it ? They must learn from their own experience. A agree that guidance through instruction will assist, but how do you convey in a couple of lessons the criteria for driving safely above the limit ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 19:04 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9260
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Fixit????????


MM & I were talking about the reduction in reduction in road safety brought about by the fixation of "road safety 'experts'" in speed reduction versus the old tried and proven method of sorting the sheep from the goats.
Them BOOM - you throw in the idea of a learner driver. FYI I believe that learners should be treated as cows in some foreign country and treated with the greatest of respect( because sometimes their actions are beyond belief as possibly all of ours were at some time ), shown the utmost in courtesy (in the hope that some day it may rub off) and
generally shied clear off (so as not to frighten them)
I would hope that whilst driving your thoughts and attention do not hop about as much as on here unless of course you're on of the accidents i see daily going somewhere to happen . .

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.405s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]