Safe Speed Forums

The key word here is chosen, this assumes that drivers who break the posted speed limit are making a conscious decision based on their skill and experience. I'm not so sure that such a convenient disconnect between what is occuring in the head of a 'speeding' driver and that of someone driving too close to the vehicle ahead can so readily be drawn.

IMHO the two stem from the same mindset, i.e. sloppy driving that results from years of 'getting away with it'. Do drivers who 'speed' all apply COAST, or do they not have accidents more by dint of the fact that all of the circumstances that contribute to a crash only co-incide at comparitively rare intervals? Likewise the motorist who drives too close to the vehicle ahead does so because that's the way they always drive, a frame of reference re-inforced by the fact that they have never been involved in a multi-car shunt. As an aside, it is interesting to note what happens when drivers actually do get a visual reference as to the safe distance they should be maintaining; such as the chevrons on the M6 north of Stoke. Although some totally ignore them, others try to fall back to keep the approved number of chevrons between themselves and the car ahead. But what happens when the chevrons are passed? The laws of physics obviously change because everyone closes up to the car ahead, just as they were doing before

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that the deployment of legions of scameras and vans is the correct response to habitual exceeding of teh posted limit, any more than the siting of 'tailgating' cameras would be the answer to the 'outside lane conga'. I'm sure such a campaign would result in an equally vociferous backlash from the sloppy tailgaters as we currently have against Gatsos. I think we need a holistic campaign aimed at polishing out all of the blemishes and sloppy habits that drivers get into once they have passed their test.

Feel free to disagree

Or could it be due to the vast tracts of open road which, until recently, were NSL - and with a low accident record - but are now 50, 40 or even 30? What is it that makes a road safe at NSL one day, and unsafe at NSL the following day?

And when you see patent absurdities like a dual-carriageway, with nothing but fields both sides and little traffic, having a 30 limit?

And last, but not least, the mind-numbing motorway speed limit - which was set back in the days of Anglias and the like, when modern cars with vastly improved braking and roadholding are arguably as safe at 120mph as an Anglia was at 60mph.

What I find surprising is that a lot more drivers don't choose to break the limit.

Regards
Peter

The reason for the speeding campaign and scamera backlash is largely because people believe that the figures are being either made up or cherry picked to fit the agenda and the whole exercise is as much about revenue as it is safety. The drink-drive campaign eventually worked because most people could see the sense in it. You didn't have to be a rocket scientist to work out that being too drunk to walk straight probably meant that driving wasn't a good idea either. Similarly I think most people would see the sense in a don't-tailgate/use-two-second-rule campaign, providing of course that they stuck to facts not unsubstantiated theories and dogma. The real risk of any road safety campaign failing is that drivers are starting to feel the partnerships have cried wolf over speed, and will naturally be more sceptical in future.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I think this depends upon how far such a campaign went. If, as I suggested above, it resulted in new camera plantations aimed at fining drivers following the car in front too closely then I think there would be a backlash.
Why? Because I thnk the reason people follow too closely is more or less the same as why they 'speed'..habit. They always drive like that and get away with it - "I've driven for X years and never had an accident blah.." = "I must be a good driver".
OK, so we've had a few 'headline' accidents involving multiple vehicles driving too closely, but on the whole there isn't regular carnage just as there isn't regular carnage caused by, as Pete quite rightly observes, people exceeding ridiculously low spped limits.
I speculate of course.

I think that it's easily possible to maintain a 2 second gap or more and STILL be driving dangerously close if your attention is insufficiently focussed.

Conversley, I think that its also possible to drive with a less-than-2-second-gap and be driving "safely" (i.e. able to maintain control and avoid an accident if the vehicle in front suddenly slams on the anchors or whatever).

As I mentioned in another thread (Polls section, driver attitude approaching roundabouts thread) I think that drivers' degree of safety can vary from one moment to the next. I believe that APPROPRIATE ALERTNESS is the key.

For instance, if I'm cruising comfortably on the motorway, and I "feel" that the hazard density and conditions are good, I can maintain a conversation with a passenger, check mirrors etc. in a relatively relaxed way, and just go with the flow.

However, if the road is busier, conditions are worse, or I want to get past a dopey driver in the fast lane who could and should pull over, then I may enter super-alert-mode, and concentrate harder on the driving, distances, positions etc.

So in the case of the dopey driver in front, a less-than-2-second-gap could be temporarily maintained, but the concentration is appropriately higher.

I've noticed that this also happens for instance when overtaking a lorry in the rain on a motorway, when an unexpectedly large amount of spray suddenly appears and more alert driving is needed to reduce the risk in a suddenly-riskier situation (lorry to one side, central barrier on other, cars in front, cars behind, suddenly reduced visibility from spray...).

Maybe worthy of another topic, but surely all drivers have variable levels of alertness depending on the situation?

_________________
p.s. I am still absolutely floored by Paul's death. May 2008 be the greatest ever for SafeSpeed. His spirit lives on.

Yup. On top of what you said about habit many would see it as revenue raising again. I don't think camera enforcement is appropriate for this either. Getting stopped and being lectured by a trafplod would be better.
Habits can be changed if people are persuaded that things get better as a result. When I was a kid adults seemed pretty relaxed about drink driving, but by the time I learned to drive it was a big no-no. Habits were changed and drink driving gradually stopped being socially acceptable. The seatbelt campaigns were also a success, and again I think this is because the message made sense. The anti-speed campaign is failing because it isn't making sense and is becoming ever harder to believe in. People are starting to get sick of fines and points for minor transgressions that wouldn't have hurt anyone, on top of which the media are finally picking up on the fact that the roads haven't actually got any safer. If they went about tailgating in the same way I doubt they'll have much luck, even though it might make more sense safety-wise than slavish adherence to speed limits.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Think about it! All traffic travells in the same direction on the motorway so probably 95% of the accidents are caused by one vehicle slamming into the back of another. So it does happen doesn't it.

Of course the 2 second rule applies.

TAXI!!!

_________________
It's Champion Man

And most of these are:

1) lorries slamming into stationary vehicles on the hard shoulder
2) inattentive people admiring the scenery and not realising the traffic ahead has stopped until it's far too late to do anything
3) people changing lanes, usually without indicating, when you're right on top of them

In fact, very few from 'following too closely'

Not that 'm trying to condone this practice, though.

Regards
Peter

touch the brake pedal?

Used to years ago, but after a while I decided that it wasn't such a good idea. Probably some will get the message, but I reckon aggressive tailgaters just get even more riled, and negligent tailgaters might panic brake.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

My default method for dealing with tailgaters is to excercise thier stress limits. This means speeding up to the safe limit (or the maximum limit, whichever is lower), then very gradually slowing down by 10%, repeating this cycle until he backs off or overtakes. After two or three cycles, the repetitive stress gets to them, and they seem to back off nicely.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Hmmm. Isn't that one of Paul's "Don't dos"?:
Paul - can you comment on why you see this as a no-no?

_________________
Keep right on to the end of the road ...

Yes. It's a "no no" because it's a stress raiser. Raising stress increases danger, and especially so when safety is already compromised by a tailgater.

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

No. It's a "yes yes", depending on the length of the cycle you follow. You get an immediate gain in reduced danger if you avoid stress raising tactics, but the tailgater receives no feedback and is unaware of your disapproval. He will do it again to the next car. By triggering stress to the point that it becomes annoying, the offenders receives a dose of negative feedback, which will factor into his decision making process the next time he tries this trick. It’s Pavlovian, basically.

_________________
I stole this .sig

It is absolutely NOT the function of safe driving to deliver education to others. The function of safe driving is to maximise safety. The two are fundamentally incompatible. I NEVER drive to educate others.

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

I have sometimes chosen to drive rather pointedly at the speed limit when being tailgated in locations where most traffic does 5-10 mph above.

Is driving legally a bad thing if the intention is partly to cause annoyance?

_________________
"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

Any situation in which driver B thinks that driver A is trying to teach him/her a lesson and make them drive differently is a potential flashpoint that should be avoided IMHO.
After all, if some people won't even accept a trafpols negative feedback on their driving style, what chance has Joe Nobody (because thats who we all are to each other) got of achieving a behaviour change in somebody who is already driving poorly.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
(Edmund Burke). That's your choice, but it sounds a bit preachy to me. My choice is to give feedback, with two fingers if necessary!

_________________
I stole this .sig

I reckon driving legally is always better than driving illegally, even if an ulterior motive exists. I never give two fingers nowadays, but I do something a bit like this, driving pointedly somewhat below the speed limit.

Your post indicates that you think it is normal to drive over the speed limit, and that you are OK if you are at it. Have you ever thought of cruising at, say, 20% below the absolute top limit? Wouldn’t that be more normal?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Absolute top limit is the legal limit, right? So you're suggesting that cruising at 24mph in a 30 limit, and 56mph on the motorway, is normal.

Can't say I have noticed much of this normal behaviour.