Safe Speed Forums

I'm glad you've brought this up again Pete because we've been over this before and I still don't see exactly what you are getting at.

It works, as a retrospective observation of two objects that have actually collided, to say that this particular collision would not have happened if one (or the other) of the collidees had been travelling at a different speed. But how does this help all of the other drivers who are about to set off on a journey of, say, three miles across town?
Do they go at 20, 30 or 40mph? And of course the events that are unravelling ahead of them are not pre-ordained, they change by the millisecond meaning any speed could be correct or incorrect.
Perhaps if our driver could travel at a ridiculous speed, say Mach 1, the reduction in time on the road would be so significant as to make a real difference when multiplied across all the opther journeys being undertaken at the same time. But the real world journy time difference between the speeds it is realistic and reasonable to attain on a given road are unlikely to offer any benefits that would be useful to the driver as a marker for deciding what speed to set.
Thus, as an observation it is interesting but, as I see it, unuseable in real world driving.

Or am I still missing the point?

But it ist not removed. They slow for this scam then accelerate aways. und if this a residential road which suffer 3/4 KSI within 3/4 years .. why are the children not being supervised? Because I tell you this.. if I live on main road or near one.. then my kids would not be playing out on it at all.

They would be supervised .. they are supervised. The eldest three are themselves not motorists .. but even so.. we keep a firm enough rein on them

Und in any case.. camera or no camera.. I still would not be letting the children play anywhere near a main road.. especially one which has a scam marking a KSI spot which supposed to be a "black spot!"

_________________
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!

Agreed. Children also fall out of trees, stick their fingers in sockets, drown in ponds, fall down the stairs etc etc. Doesn't make it right, but it happens



And probably the driver's lack of attention. In probably 99.9% of such situations the driver should have seen the situation developing from a long way off. Which is why the attitude of, "I'm within the speed limit so I'm safe, so I'll just admire the scenery", is such a dangerous one.

.


And zillions of other combinations of speed/distances/levels of attention etc in between, and even more outside. Why 'cherry-pick' those two?



The only speed which decides the outcome is the impact speed - which is determined by so many factors besides traveling speed that it bears little or no relation to the latter.



There was a tragic accident, widely publicised a few years back, in which a toddler crawled under the wheels of a lorry which was inching forward at a few mph. And many children are killed and badly injured in driveway reversing incidents.

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

Either justify that statement or it will be considered as trolling.

Cast your eyes upthread, at least two posters have made it clear they do not speed, therefore I'm taking pains to address speeders, not the people on this site, who deny speeding.

Likewise with drivers on mobiles. Someone braver than me stops in front of drivers on mobiles and shouts:

Are you stupid!!

at them until they sheepishly hang up. In my opinion, the desertion of the social contract with regards to driving on a mobile is because of the cossetted nature of many drivers, immune to everything and everyone whilst they drive. This, I think, explains why the smoking ban has been invariably obeyed whilst the driving on a mobile ban is regularly flouted.


Lord Bingham was right- the responsibilities are incumbant on the driver, if they are flouted then automatic detection and the ensuing censure are entirely proper, and furthermore would be unnecessary were drivers to obey the law.

Again, disingenuous, misrepresentative nonsense. Did these posters deny speeding, or having points on their licences?

But no one advocating driving whilst fatigued or otherwise unfit. I nearly killed by someone becoming fatally ill behind wheel/

I survive a high speed smash into my car in a jam.








They make cars noisier apparently .. but you were complaining about noise at first.

Are you now saying wearing seatbelts ist a bad thing?

They save lives you know..

Though in my case.. I am always that niggling feline I unhitched my seat belt when I saw the definitely about to impact hard.

Nowhere to go.. I thought.. my last moment anyway..

Anyway .. unbuckled und took whatever cover I could find.

I think the right decision .. But I get impailed on gear lever in the impact.. it was a bit messy..

_________________
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!

Again, disingenuous, misrepresentative nonsense.


BottyBurp


Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:56 pm Post subject:

I have a squeaky-clean licence and have never been caught by a speedcam.

Barkstar


Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:59 pm Post subject:


Incidently I generally support Safespeeds aims and I've never had a speeding ticket or a point on my licence, which I've held for over 25 years. So Nurrr!!!!

End quotes.


My comments are directed at speeders. I'm explaining, at some tedious length after reading the above, that I am not criticising anyones' driving here. If any posters do speed they are welcome to admit it here, please don't jump down my throat for expressing an opinion based on what I read here.


You remember I explained that speeding drivers annoy me?

You know I pointed out that up and down the country residents are clamouring for better speeding enforcement?

Speeding is top of the league when it comes to antisocial behaviour, a University of Reading study has shown.

Thames Valley Police approached psychologists at the University of Reading and asked them to analyse the British Crime Survey - which considers the concerns of more than 17,000 people across the UK.

Speeding traffic was rated as a significantly greater problem than all other antisocial behaviours, with 43% of the population regarded speeding traffic as a 'very' or 'fairly big' problem in their area.

Furthermore, the perception of speeding traffic as the antisocial behaviour of most concern was held by both men and women - young, middle aged, and old.




http://www.reading.ac.uk/about/newsande ... PR3936.asp


This is the reality that squares with my feelings on the issue and those of the people bothered enough by this reckless, anti-cosial activity to get off thir butts and protest.

Where do those posters (or I for that matter) claim never to speed? Are you hard of thinking?

No driver never speeds.

If you can clarify/confirm that you didn’t mean that posters here feel the 'idiots blasting along a congested road' shouldn't be punished, then I’m happy.

Are you now saying wearing seatbelts ist a bad thing?

What gives you that impression please?

Aside from the abuse, there seem to be quite a few straw men floating around, I explained that the noted phenomenon of heightened security leading to more risk taking:

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2006/11/aut ... afety.html

How from this you get the idea I oppose seatbelts is baffling.





Drivers really need to get their head around the fact that speeding is not a tax on driving, it's against the law and therefore punishable. For me the proposal makes perfect sense as the excessive speeds that more and more people drive at need to be curbed and stiffer penalties should help. Please note that I say all this as a driver with a previous speeding conviction.

COAST ist not a recipe for speeding. In fact you probably find a real COAST driver does not speed in urbans und ist usually travelling slower than the cyclist. (I been undertaken by cyclists when passing parked cars )


By the way .. have no points on licence ever .. nor has Ted (Mad Doc) nor did Paulie either Und it not through "useful gadgets".. it through COAST awareness und responsible driving.

Apart from the no fault incident .. which one of those unfortunates.. no one in family had driving incident or caused one .. but we apply COAST all the time to try our best at all time that we stay safe und diffuse a bad situation should it evolve..




Whilst I am on record for being highly critical of the Handy idiot .. to extent I would love to ram the thing somewhere sun ist not known to shine.. (I nearly typed a "t" there ) ... I think it more stupid to stand in front of one of these idiots und order them to stop They more likely to mow me down..


A camera will not stop them. You need a policeman to do this. Really. In a car .. MARKED.




What about though the cyclist on a Handy phone.. that just as bad und as dangerous ?

Or does this rule not apply to cyclists ..

Personally I would rather folk refrain from using them all the time though.

I once watch crowd of folk,..,supposedly walking together .. but each engaged on a Handy phone conversation. It look like a Monty Python sketch in surealism ::wink:

Whatever did we do before a Handy I can do without mine.. but admit we use it on the basis that the kids monopolise the land line when they run out of "credit" und we are very strict on the allowance for them.


Lord Bingham was right- the responsibilities are incumbant on the driver, if they are flouted then automatic detection and the ensuing censure are entirely proper, and furthermore would be unnecessary were drivers to obey the law.[/quote]

_________________
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!

As a driver with a previous speeding conviction, were you driving dangerously at the time you were caught?

Where do those posters (or I for that matter) claim never to speed? Are you hard of thinking?

No driver never speeds.

Two posters said they had never been caught speeding, I took this to mean they did not speed. If, however, they ARE criminals and they DO speed, then I apologise to them for suggesting otherwise.

Cameras to me, after my wake up call, are an irrelevance.


Fifty years ago kids could play in the street.
Now, if a child is run over by a speeding driver, the child gets
blamed. For behaving like a child. In Germany they do it
differently, and their pedestrian fatality rate is much lower.

There is a strong correlation between speeding convictions and crashing. So by piling up the points, the cameras are making it more liklely that the
most clueless will end up banned.

Some drivers also like to pretend that cameras are being used as an
alternative to other forms of traffic policing. They aren't. They
are self-funding and run by camera partnerships and not by the police.


As far as I can see the only reason the speed message is being
overemphasised is that speedophiles are obsessed with the "injustice"
of being prosecuted for breaking the law.

You're right - it doesn't make any difference, but that, in a way, is the point I'm trying to make.
As far as the 'speed kills' brigade are concerned, it makes a huge difference. I have seen several research papers which make use of this totally hypothetical (it cannot happen in real-life) point that if, in a particular collision, the speed had been lower the outcome would have been different, in order to justify their findings that lowering a speed limit would result in x fewer deaths.
In reality, traveling speed has a far lesser influence on the probability of collisions and on their outcomes than these research papers would have you believe. All this, while the 'elephant in the room' - driver attention and hazard awareness - which really does have a profound effect on collision probability and outcome, is strangely ignored.

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

The problem isn't that kids will do stupid/irrational/completely random things from time to time, it's that they no longer have any real education on how to interact with road vehicles in a safe and appropriate manner. So in years gone by, drivers could have a reasonable expectation that the average young pedestrian would at least have a basic grasp of road safety. These days that reasonable expectation no longer exists, and the onus is now almost entirely on the driver to prevent the accident from occurring, rather than it being - as it should be - a joint effort between both parties.

So yes, you're right, if a child does wander into the road without looking, they shouldn't be killed. And as a civilised society, it's only right that we should expect all drivers to do their bit in reducing KSIs. But really, shouldn't it be that, as a civilised society, we should expect all road users to do their bit? Why have we allowed successive generations of pedestrians to be let off the responsibility hook by not giving them any useful safety education?





Hmm, so that Think ad (which must be entirely accurate - government wouldn't lie to us, would it?) which exhorts drivers to respect 30 limits because "if you hit me at 30, there's an 80% chance I'll survive", is just a load of cobblers then?







Not quite. The relative speeds of the objects involved at the point of impact determine the outcome. How these speeds relate to the original speeds of the objects involved is subject to a whole bunch of factors, making it a bit dubious to claim that the faster someone is driving along a road at point A, the faster they'll slam into the pedestrian at point B.




Clearly the relative speeds will always have an influence on the outcome - there has to be some relative speed between the objects in order for the collision to occur in the first place - so it's impossible for anyone to fully meet your challenge. OTOH, at the depot where my wife works, one of her colleagues was killed by a bus reversing at walking pace, and back when I was living/working in Slough I recall a local news report about someone being dragged under the wheels of an HGV that was performing an equally low-speed maneouvre. Neither of those deaths would have occurred had the vehicles been stationary, but once they did start to move then the severity of the injuries caused were more the result of the vehicle masses than the vehicle speeds.

_________________
Chris

A camera will not stop them. You need a policeman to do this. Really. In a car .. MARKED.

Perhaps if you read the very first post on this thread?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... =1770&ct=5

New super-cameras mean no hiding for drivers who smoke, eat or use a phone
By RAY MASSEY -


Digital speed cameras which capture drivers smoking or eating at the wheel are being introduced nationwide in a new move to hammer motorists.

Drivers will also face fines, bans and even jail for infringements such as driving without a seatbelt, using a hand-held mobile phone or overtaking across double white lines.

The hi-tech DVD cameras, which have instant playback, will also be used to provide photographic evidence against those eating sandwiches or rolling-up cigarettes at the wheel.


End quote.


Since we know higherspeeds make crashes more likely and increase the severity of injuries inflicted then yes, I was behaving dangerously when I sped.

Plus, once again, I ignored the social contract and pissed off other road user like the respondees to the reading University survey.

Everyone needs to get their head around the fact that the usage of the law no-longer reflects the spirit of the law, instead it now supports those with interests in its enforcement.


I thought that's what we had, coupled with falling average speeds - so how is our fatality rate doing?


I say all this as a driver who has never faced conviction (let alone getting one) for speeding.

Perhaps I should point out that a lot of the latter things said regarding anti-social driving are quite agreeable; however, some of the earlier posts were not because we previously discussing the use of automated cameras on these routes (cameras vs trafpol).

These days that reasonable expectation no longer exists, and the onus is now almost entirely on the driver to prevent the accident from occurring, rather than it being - as it should be - a joint effort between both parties.

Interesting, what's your evidence for this please?

The last TV ads I've seen were the drunk driving one and the one about teenagers texting. "At fault" collison rates have not deviated a discernible level recently, do you have any evidence for a deterioration in pedestrians' spacial awareness?

And your "as it should be" is, I suggest, utterly wrong.

The balance upon people operating heavy machinery in a public place is greater than the responsibility upon pedestrians, for obvious reasons. that's why conditions and restraints are placed upon drivers, not pedestrians.

Then surely a paltry fine and 3 points from a speed camera was not sufficient punishment. A real-life police officer could have charged you with dangerous driving, as you confess to having deserved.

(cameras vs trafpol).

We have 6000 cameras.

Replace them with cops- 20,000 officers assuming 8 hour shifts. That's a lot of tax. There is no link between trafpol numbers declining and camera deployment- read the post above about Blair's rash promise on street crime.

* In the UK, 70 children - the equivalent of two full classrooms - are still being killed or seriously injured every week.

http://www.racfoundation.org/index.php? ... &Itemid=35

No room for complacency as far as I can see.