Safe Speed Forums

I was just wondering whether the reason a lot of drivers exceed a lot of limits is that their observation skills aren't so great. So they don't see the dangers, they don't slow down on likely scenarios plus the task rate preference level also pushes them towards higher speeds as they don't have that many tasks? The whole speed kills is backwards as it is looking at the consequence of a behaviour rather than a cause of anything. It fits people's beliefs as a lot of the unobservant are exceeding speed limits. No one mentions lack of observation so everyone assumes it was because they were driving too fast. Slowing them down is not enough; you have to make them want to slow down so the only way I see is by increasing observation skills which increases work rate so they would have to slow down to maintain their current work rate.

I'm also noticing a lot more 40 mph numpties than I used to. I am beginning to wonder whether secretly a big chunk of the driving population would just drive at 40 mph roughly everywhere on single carriageway roads and 60-80 on motorways if given the opportunity. 40 mph is roughly safe with looking a few car lengths ahead which is where I think most people are focusing hence they feel they are driving safely as things are only happening in the narrow window between their bumper and a couple of cars ahead, not the horizon or out to the sides. It would also explain why 40 limits are the safest and people are so compliant as this is the only limit which correlates with their natural preference. Scary thought isn't it?

I tend to make a clear distinction between speeding in towns, villages, and built up areas generally, and speeding on the open road.

The type of hazard climate and the incidence of specific hazards is very different as I see it, and I treat the two situations very differently.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

I think teabelly has made an excellent point.

As humans we have an extremely well developed sense of survival. As we approach hazards we set our speed according to what we think is safe, which I belive is primarily governed by the quality of our observation and the interpretation of it.

I find I travel a lot more slowly in certain situations than I would have done 20 years ago, and whilst it is easy to simply write this off as being the result of encroaching middle age leading to excessive caution, I think there's a bit more to it than that. I think the main difference is that I observe "better", and I draw better conclusions from what I see, which gives me a more accurate understanding of the level of potential risk and the speed I need to select to maintain a reasonable degree of safety.

This theory is perhaps borne out by the fact that I still feel just as happy to make progress in other places, if not more so than I used to.

I would say that if we want people to drive at a safe speed we need to teach them...

1. to improve their observation. That's not simply "looking more", it's more about looking for the right things, and equally about not looking at the wrong things. If we can increase the percentage of our time we spend looking at actual or potential hazards rather than at things that don't matter, then that is critical. Little wonder that C nd O come first in COAST!

2. to improve their interpretation. It's no good seeing a hazard if we don't recognise it as such. This I believe is where new drivers really fall down - the clues are there but go unheeded.

The bottom line is that most drivers don't deliberately set out to endanger anyone. If they end up approaching a hazard too fast it is either because they haven't seen it, or have failed to recognise it for what it is. Telling them to watch the speed limits does not address this problem, in fact it probably makes it worse!

If we can train people to spot hazards and appreciate them for what they are, then the correct speed selection becomes a completely automatic process, and speed limits become largely irrelevant.

I'm convinced that this is the area where the potential for the next big reduction in casualties lies, and that the current obsession with speed enforcement is actually taking us away from where we need to go.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

I would comment that the older (as in years ago, not necessarily age) 40mph'rs used to 40mph everywhere that was single carraigeway. They would do 40mph on the country roads perhaps speeding up to 45 in a nice clear streight. But when they got to the 30 limits they didn't slow down at all, just plowed on reguardless.

The speed camera campaign has been effective in one respect - these people now drive slower in 30 limits, but I am not convinced that they are observing or anticipating anything any better than they used to.

Good post there JT, if I may say so.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

I believe that there's a general tendency for experienced drivers to go faster where safe and slower than unsafe. In fact I'd say the use of a wide range of speeds was one of the hallmarks of a good driver.

As for the original 'Why?' question, I believe that the following Safe Speed page explores the primary reasons:

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

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

During the past three years I have become much more interested in road safety, although I have been a very long term keen driver. In recent times I find I have slowed down quite a bit in built up areas, and whereas the speed limit might be 30 mph I often drive much more slowly, especially if there are parked vehicles and pedestrians all mixed up together, with not much clear space around them.

On the other hand I have speeded up greatly in NSL areas, well into instant ban territory, but I do not believe this is introducing significant additional dangers, or causing concern to other road users. What matters is where you do it, and how you do it.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

I go at a fair lick in and out of town, I happily admit.

I do, however, go slower than the majority of people down narrow country lanes. I always figure that if I can't stop in half the distance I can see, what happens if someone comes round the corner?

The number of times I will catch someone up on an A road, we turn off together, then they leave me behind.... I am always mystified by how they get away with it for so long.

The usual answer is that when push comes to shove you can usually stop a lot sooner than you think you can. Fortunately!

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

My mate got pulled for speeding at 2am on an empty motorway.

He told the cop he "took advantage of the open road" and
should not have done. He did get a fine but only £30 and he
did not get any points for it. I guess this is the "common
sense" we would all like to see in our Police? If it were 2pm
and not 2am then yes, throw the book at him but I think
in this case the cop got it right. Then again I know my friends
father is a Freemason so... guess I better stop there before
I say something I shouldn't.