Safe Speed Forums

As we have discussed before, this analysis is incorrect, as virtually all risks on the road are related to location, not time.

For example, the risk of a pedestrian suddenly stepping into the road in front of you is determined by the number of pedestrians you pass, not the time you spend on the road. Whether your journey takes 30 minutes or 20, you will still pass the same number of pedestrians.

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

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

I agree, your speed has little to do with the probability of you encountering an incident, but it has loads to do with the outcome when the die fall against your favour. So I still don't see where this 'time and place' argument falls in.



Yep, thats what should happen, and thats what I would do, but we're not just talking about me are we? We have to deal with the way people do drive in the real world don't we? (Hmmm, where have we used that term before.)
I'm not totally convinced that drivers contribute as fully as they could by slowing down in certain areas, particularly residential. If they were all fully observant and reacted properly to hazards along the way then I'd accept that they could increase their speed in between, but I remain to be convinced that this is so.

PS: This doesn't mean I've had a dramatic change of tune over the past couple of months, I want to be convinced that its drivers behaviour that is preventing carnage each time someone steps off the pavement at the wrong time (or similar). What I see on my daily commute and other drives creates a dichotomy in my own mind; it just doesn't appear to be this way.

I suspect that we may be at cross-purposes here, but I don't see how you can say that. A pedestrian can run into the road at any time, at any place. a car can pull out of any driveway at any time. And even at dangerous junctions, there isn't always a car just waiting to pull out into your path.
There's always a random time element, even if there isn't necessarily a random location element.



That might be true if all pedestrians behaved the same. But pedestrians who are of the habit of suddenly darting into the road without looking are, mercifully, few and far between - and the longer you spend on the road the more likely you are to encounter one of them.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

But they're not being told that that's what they should be doing, is it? All they're being told is that all that's important is to stick to the speed limit.

So slowing down a few dodgy drivers might reduce their accident risk - but if that's, as could well be, at the expense of increasing the accident risk of the more-or-less careful majority, then what have we gained?
Putting it another way, if you halve the accident risk of one driver, but at the same time double the accident risk of another ten drivers... I know that that's an extreme example, but it illustrates my point.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Mosis,

I have read many of your posts and come to the conclusion that you are right and we are wrong, no matter what the evidence placed before you.

If the Devil's-Box-on-a-Stick had never been invented, we were not all assumed to be the same IQ as George Bush, Police patrol vehicles still pulled you over with comments like "OK, Stirling, where's the fire?", kids were taught that 'if you step out in front of a car, you will get killed' and the Cycling Proficiency Test was still mandatory in Primary Schools, BBS's like this and others would not exist...

And you would be just another rolling road-block for people to risk their lives getting past, sitting in the outer lane at 68 mph grinning smugly because 'That's The Law...', deriving no pleasure from driving and ensuring that those around you can only do the same.

We drive as we do because of our passion and love for the greatest invention bar none - would Constable, Munnings or Reynolds have painted by numbers?

My advice to you sir, is to either recognise some fellow-feeling with the drivers and their cars on these sites or to hang up your keys and use our wonderful public transport system.

I would also lay good money that, if this was a pub, rather than a BBS, you would be far less contentious in your assertions.

Healthy debate is the spine of our community here. Blind mud-stirring has no place.

_________________
Aquila



Licat volare si super tergum aquila volat...

Ah, those were the days.
I remember when one of my mates (Babby) turned 17 and bought himself a little Mini to learn to drive in (it was 1986). On went the L plates, me sitting next to him (as the qualified driver), and off we went down the A23 for a day trip to Brighton.

We got stopped along the way (just outside of Gatwick) and after the copper had looked over the car, the conversation went like this..

BiB - I think you've lost the GT badge off the boot son
Babby - It doesn't have a GT badge mate, it's just a standard Mini
BiB - Well if it's not a GT, then stop f*cking driving it like one

End result was a friendly "flea in the ear" about keeping the speed down and to fix a couple of small defects and we were off. I know for sure that if we had been caught doing the same things today, then both my mate & I would have been wearing points on our licenses.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Well I've attempted to read or more importantly understand all the points in this thread, but my feeble brain was under full load for too long and has over heated.

The trouble with speed is that it is too easy to measure. Driving as I will be for the next couple of weeks were my forward speed will be critical I have to watch what I am doing. Most of the cockups I and I am sure most people make, is because I (we) take my (our) eye(s) off the ball. What we need is a camera that measures brain waves and anyone who's brain wanders too far from the job in hand gets a slapped wrist or something.

If only....

Perhaps someone like BW can put his mind to something useful for a change.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

I rest my case.
Thanks for being so (foolishly) honest. You have condemned yourself with your own mouth.
"I like to drive fast"
"I drive at a safe speed, higher than the posted speed limit 99% of the time"
" I am a safe driver who knows his own limits"
"to be able to earn money, I must make good progress when on the road"
"I am a working man who is safe and needs to get business done."

The milk of human kindness...
Not at all selfish, aggressive, or self-important then.

What a wonderful, caring human being you must be!

I expect I earn a lot more than you (as I'm in the top 5% of earners in the UK) yet I never feel the need to speed. Perhaps you should get a job where you actually are in control? Instead of running round like a blue assed fly? I enjoy driving and always stay within the speed limit - but then, I've organised my life so that I get where I need to be in plenty of time, and I'm not driven by an obsession with getting more money than I need (although I do earn far more than I need, but that's not because I want it for myself.)

Oooh! Watch out Mog! Wildy could have a Sugar-Daddy here!

Or shall we pass him onto Ling..?

_________________
Aquila



Licat volare si super tergum aquila volat...

Modest, isn't it/him/her?

Got it! He drives Nu Labia's 'Battle-Bus'!

_________________
Aquila



Licat volare si super tergum aquila volat...

I don't quite understand the connection you obviously perceive between earnings and propensity for exceeding the speed limit. Could you explain this further and also tell us what kind of vehicle you drive?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Virtually all, is not all. For example I think we could all agree that the more tired you are the more chance there is you will make a mistake. Therefore the longer you spend on the road, because you are driving slower, the more likely it is you will be tired, and therefore make a mistake.


Let's assume that is true, for example if you drive past a school in school time, but someone else drives by ten minutes later at school leaving time, the second person will pass more pedestrians. However these things tend to even themselves out, so I think we can let this assertion stand.

However the crucial thing is the length of time you spend passing these pedestrians. The faster you are going, the less time they have to walk into your path. Things are not that simple of course. For example if you drive twice as fast you might have only half as much chance as hitting a pedestrian, but the damage to the pedestrians is not proportional to the speed. We also know that the slower the traffic goes the more likely pedestrians are to walk into the road, because they perceive no danger.

No, this is incorrect. However quickly you go, there is still a window in front of you of the same length of time during which it is possible that a pedestrian may step into the road in front and you are unable to stop. Indeed, the faster you go, the longer your braking distance will be.

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

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

I call bollocks!

Possible, yes. Probable, no. I think I can still count on the fingers of one hand the number of pedestrians who have ever walked out into the road in front of me and caused me to brake. And that's over more than three decades.
The longer you spend on the road the more likely you are to encounter one of those numpties.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Does that include gentle braking? Or (old style) pedestrian crossings?



But Pete, surely if we could drive from London to Edinburgh off the motorways at the speed of light we'd expect to kill a few dozen in a tiny fraction of a second? That doesn't square with your view does it?

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

I see what Pete is saying. The faster you go, the greater the danger zone, but also the farther it is in front of you:



In zone 1 the pedestrian cannot reach the danger zone from the side before the car passes. In zone 2 the pedestrian can cross before the car arrives.

At the slower speed the red danger zone is smaller but nearer. This has the effect that it is necessary to look nearer to one's own bonnet rather than farther ahead. When trying to see the 'big picture' ahead this means that more scanning backward and forward is needed, and might help explain why it 'just feels wrong' to drive at a very slow speed. It is more comforatble to drive at a speed where the red danger zone (for pedestrians) is just far enough ahead where you expect to be looking at the traffic in front and your navigation landmarks.

I'd say moderate braking. And never anywhere near a pedestrian crossing.
The only time I've ever had to brake hard for a pedestrian was when a drunk youngster quite deliberately walked into the road in front of me - funnily enough, I saw that one coming and had already slowed down to less than 10mph before I reached him - but I still had to brake hard.



No. I've explained this before.
The average time between such encounters is very (actually, extremely) long compared to your stopping time. As is the average distance between such encounters extremely long compared to your stopping distance.

That's what makes the difference.

If you were travelling at the speed of light your stopping distance would be a lot longer than the distance between London and Edinburgh.

Edited to get rid of typos and other stupid mistakes.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler