Safe Speed Forums

Most of the proponents of speed cameras (including our own residents Basingwerk, Plod, Painter etc.) have argued that reduced speeds are a positive thing as, if nothing else, they will mitigate the effects of collisions, and that 'drivers aren't as good as they think they are at handling speed'. The rest of us would argue that things are never that simple and it would be better to improve driver quality and avoid the collisions in the first place, however.....

Travelling on the French autoroutes I have often noticed at the tollgates and on the bridges large reminders to 'check your tyre pressure' and many educative warnings of the dangers of underinflated tyres.

I would bet that most drivers in this country (and a large number of readers of these forums) do not fully understand the consequences of driving with underinflated tyres. At low speeds the worst effect is probably uneven wear on the outer edges of the tyre tread, but at high speed the flexing of the tyrewall due to lack of support from air pressure causes unusually high temperatures to build up in the tyre and eventually leads to delamination and a blow-out.

Would the 'reduced speeds cure all' proponents argue that it would be better to slow people down in case they are driving with tyres that are underinflated rather than educate them to the dangers of doing so and making sure they inflate their tyres properly? After all - the effects of underinflated tyres are mitigated by travelling slower so why bother with anything else?

Could we extend their arguments to the importance of having adequate braking on cars - why bother checking braking performance? Just tell everyone to slow down...?

You only have to spend an half an hour on any main road to see how poorly some drivers are at driving in general, including poor handling of speed. Indeed, many of the opponents of speed cameras recognise the 'thumb in bum' attitudes which are prevalent.

Others have tried before to stress that speed is just one of many equivalent parameters, but that is false. Speed differs in at least two important respects from any other parameter. First, it is possible to measure it remotely by instruments, and you can't do that with tyre pressures (yet). One would expect that because it can be measured, it will be measured, such is life. You can argue with what is done with the measurement information.

Second, speed 'on it's own' is inherently capable of being unsafe because it generates force which must be controlled, whereas low tyre pressures and other mechanical issues need (at least some) speed to be unsafe. There is a difference, and speed is special, although I accept that there is also a matter of degree in these arguments, and one must try to stay in the practical world, rather than the physics of the matter.

If you drive a car with poor tyre pressure, that is unsafe. I check my tyre pressures regularly and it is right that we should all do that. If people do not, it is certainly true that it would be better to slow such people down, but that is second best, of course.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Wholly untrue. Are you aware of the systems fitted to many vehicles these days that give read-outs of tyre pressure on the dashboard, thanks to telemetry systems built into the tyre valves? Obviously not.....

Unless maybe you are talking about measuring the pressures on passing vehicles with a view to detecting and punishing, rather than educating the driver...





'Make imprtant what you can measure, rather than measure what is important' seems to be your creed, and seems to be the entire purpose of your reply.*



Speed is an effect of something else, not a cause in itself, so your point is irrelevant in this discussion, except to build a case for your attempt to talk up 'what's important'*!

Wind speed? The speed of a spec of dust hitting your windscreen as compared to the speed of a stone doing the same?? I would argue the converse with equal conviction - that even extremely high speed is inherently capable of being safe in certain circumstances. Neither of us is wrong.



No - it would be better to ensure they fix their tyre pressures. Reducing speeds doesn't come into it as a safety measure (except as an infinitesimally inadequate one compared to the alternatives as the increased tyre wear that will still result is also a danger) as it merely mitigates the symptoms rather than prevents the cause utterly and absolutely in this and in every other case!!

What I am saying here is that we have the option of a total solution if we are prepared to educate, or a partial solution if we aren't.

Before I deal with the rest, how exactly would you make the judgement that they were showing "poor handling of speed"?

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

The authorities cannot gain access to that data (yet). That needs drive by RF or other means of data transfer. Why should they not be punished - policemen tend to punish people who endanger others, that is their job.



McNamara also wrote "a computer does not substitute for judgment any more than a pencil substitutes for literacy. But writing without a pencil is no particular advantage". Just because you can do without a particular technology doesn't mean that you should do without it.



Yes, and those circumstances are that it is controlled and coordinated. The reason why SafeSpeed has not recognised that speed limits are vital in managing road use contention is that he knows that it will reveal a simple fact - that road use is a communal, shared activity, and you can't mix high and low speeds without managing them very carefully, especially in congested, populated or high speed areas.



And the options are not mutually exclusive. I fully endorse proper education and training. I also fully endorse detection technology when it is paid for, not from the training budget, but by offenders themselves.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Rubbish!! You clearly missed my point about the stone and the spec of dust. It's the physical manifestation of "speed" that makes a difference, not the speed itself and whether it is controlled or not.

Best ask r11co, he raised the notion. But I'll give my input as you asked. I can tell straight away if a person crashes head-on into me because their momentum has put them on the wrong side of road on bend. That is a sure sign of poor handling of speed, although you might be dead before you can bear witness! Luckily, there are more subtle ways of telling. When you are tailgating, you are handling your speed very poorly. The right thing to do is slow, pull back a bit and calm down. When you approach a bend, and a vehicle is in front or you, you show poor handling of speed if you pull out and overtake anyway. The right thing to do is slow, and wait your chance. You show poor handling of speed if you zoom through a village during the school run. The right thing to do is calm down until you pass the area, then put your foot down. You show poor handling of speed when you misjudge your overtaking distance, forcing lane swiping that causes others to ‘mercy brake’. The right thing to do if you are a poor overtaker is calm down and hang back until you are sure it is OK. You show poor handling of speed when you engage in ditch flipping, which happens when you turn your car over into a deep water channel at the side of the road. It is best to get the feel of the road and set your speed properly. When you chop down the hedges in the country with your front bumper at 60 mph, it is a sure sign that you are handling your speed badly. And I would say that if you do something dangerous that wouldn’t have happened except that you were going too fast or trying to go too fast for the conditions, then you are handling your speed poorly.

All these things could happen anyway, but they are less likely to happen if you set your speed properly. Of course, at a different level, this has nothing to do with “speed” at all, and everything to do with behaviour. And we won’t change behaviour until we explain that the rules are meant to be for the good of all, not just to increase the rate of progress of selfish individuals.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Thanks, r11co! I've added a patch to the BileTranslator.pl.
$_ =~ s/Rubbish!/Interesting!/gi;
$_ =~ s/You clearly missed/I didn't make clear/gi;

You work now reads:



I know what you mean, though. I specifically mean the speed of a car and the risk it causes to the driver and other road users when it is not properly controlled.

_________________
I stole this .sig

It is only possible to get an estimate of speed, no instrument is an EXACT measure.



Speed is only the measure of the movement of an object, and on its own is completly safe. It is the driver that decides whether they do it safely.

Speed does not contribute or cause an accident in any form. It is entirly down to the driver.



A leaking fuel hose, needs no speed to be unsafe. Mechanical maintenance of vehicles is critical to safe driving:

Worn Suspension, will cause loss of control.

Worn brakes, will cause loss of control & impact.

Worn or low pressure tyres, will cause loss of control, reduced braking, and poor stability.

Worn steering will cause loss of control.

Bad driving will cause accidents

Bad maintenance will cause accidents.

Speed is just an inaccurate measure of movement.




Do you change your pressures according to your load

_________________
Steve

Yep. You'll see all that "half an hour on any main road". Not.

You're wasting my time.

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

No, police tend to punish people who break the law.



But that's like saying we should use technology simply because it's there, not because there's any real benefit from doing so. Which is why McNamara's "measure what's important" quote is more relevant to this discussion than the one you've just added.

Yes, we can measure (sometimes accurately) the speed of a vehicle. But is that sufficiently important when taken in isolation of all other factors (as is the case when PC Gatso is on patrol) to be made a cornerstone of current road safety policy?



Even if it turns a significant number of safe and otherwise legal road users into criminals simply because they broke a technical law which is being increasingly abused by the car-hating members of our local authorities, and at the expense of detecting other motoring crimes that have a far higher impact on road safety?

I'm in favour of automated detection being used as part of the overall approach to road policing, but the way it's being used at present is almost entirely unacceptable. Let's have speed limits set by people qualified in the subject, rather than local councillors acting on a personal whim or following a request from a handful of residents, and let's see those limits continually reviewed so that they remain sensible given any changes to the road layout and condition, to changes in vehicle technology etc. Let's also see a significant increase in traffic police out on the roads (I'm pleased to say this does seem to be happening, though slowly, in my neck of the woods), so that the average motorist is likely to see patrol cars on a regular basis and know there's a far better chance than at present that the next numpty they see cutting across lanes without indicating, driving at night with broken (or simply not switched on) lights, belching out a thick smokescreen from their exhaust etc. etc. is going to be pulled over sooner rather than later.

Let's have sensible and realistic limits that are consistent across the country and which reflect the current state of road/vehicle technology as opposed to a historical snapshot taken 40 years ago. Limits that most drivers would be able to accept as appropriate for the type of road, without wondering what local government dimwit thought it acceptable to burden such a lovely stretch of road with such a low limit. Limits that most drivers would stay within even if no limits were displayed anywhere. Then by all means throw the book at any driver who chose to break those limits.

In short, let's make the road system a place where the behaviour of the majority of drivers is seen as legal and appropriate, rather than as something to be moulded by force into something different. Because if we need to apply so much force into changing the behaviour of the average motorist, then we really should be asking ourselves whos at fault - the motorist or the person who thinks the behaviour of the motorist needs to be changed...

Maybe the driver was just sticking to the speed limit which is normally too fast for the road.

or

Maybe, they were not driving with due care & attention and failed to see the bend approaching.

or

Their brakes had failed due to poor maintenance

or

they were forced to swerve

or

they are driving reckless.




That is a sure sign of bad driving

When you are tailgating, you are handling your speed very poorly.

What has speed got to do with tail gating, this is just driving recklessly.



That is an error of judgement (and reckless driving), it has nothing to do with speed.

.

The speed of your vehicle is of no effect, you can drive through at 20 mph, but if you do not spot a child running out in front of you at this speed you will kill the child at such a high impact speed.

.

Then lose control and hit one of the vehicles full of school children, that have just been picked up


.

You show poor driving, the speed you use to follow or overtake will not prevent an accident.




Is not to overtake, until you have gained some trianing to overtake in a safe manner.



Incorrect, you should never hang back, when you are overtaking. By the time you start overtaking, oncoming traffic may already be approaching.


I assume, you do not have a driving license, as your writing suggest.[/quote]

_________________
Steve

You suggest dealing with a complex and ever varying problem with a rigid and over simplistic solution. Who's the fool here?



This is contemptible 'ivory towers' stuff. Essentially what you are saying is it doesn't fit with what you believe, so you will change it.



No I didn't.

Basingwerk - get back on topic, or I think there will be a strong case for your posts to be deleted/diverted.

At what point should we accept that there are infinitely better solutions than 'just slowing down?' Tyres, brakes....?

At what point should those who propose slowing down as a cure-all accept that there are better solutions??

You have been asked this question in a number of ways on many occasions previously and have avoided it/evaded it/gone off on one of your creative off-topic moments.

Is it so hard to accept that your settling for an inadequate solution and justifying it to the hilt is actually killing people?

Not all, but would definitely see at least one of those things on a main road for half an hour, and maybe more. I have seen all of it in the last few months. Ditch dipping (or whatever I called it), is very popular around the Ely area, and I see at least one instance of it a week through winter. Sometimes, two or three kids end up drowned. It’s sad.



No! You are responsible for your time, not me.

_________________
I stole this .sig

and later...



Hm... someone raised it and it it wasn't me.




You are referring to mechanical faults, which I think I am right in saying (and I am relying on old information here, so if anyone knows the right figures, plug them in) account for a very small number of crashes. Last time I checked, it was 1%. Perhaps SafeSpeed (who is cross with me) knows how many?

_________________
I stole this .sig

I have two, and I have have passed my car test twice, and my bike test once. Top that, bmwk12!

_________________
I stole this .sig

It is an argument you and others use and re-use to justify your position. My first post states that by way of illustration, and if you disagree with this statement (ie. that it is one of your pet arguments for your case, as used in countless posts within this forum) I will listen, but please don't accuse me of coming up with it - I have never raised it nor do I agree with it.



I am referring to causes that can be mitigated by speed. The fact that they are mechanical faults is also irrelevant to my point. They are just illustrations. Other posters in this thread have come up with many other illustrations - causes of collisions mitigated by speed that aren't mechanical faults (errors of judgement etc. etc.). Again, it doesn't matter. The point is that there are better (sometimes total) solutions to these causes.

At what point do you accept that there is a better solution than the alleged cure-all which is slowing down?

I'll afford anyone the courtesy of a conversation. That's my choice.

However, I expect others to respect fair play and make a fair stab at answering questions honestly and fairly.

You clearly have the intelligence to understand the issue and answer properly, yet you chose not to.

If you intend to major on such tactics, I shall withdraw my open offer of conversation from you. That would be a shame. Please be honest, straightforward and accurate instead.

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

Wait one moment there, r11co. There are wheels within wheels here. If it is a mechanical fault, it should be mended, and there are measures to test cars. I once did have a split pin break in my swing arm on my Kawasaki, and the wheel did come loose, but I was only doing 30 on the Allt Goch, and I could stop. My mate Jim had a blow out right in front of me on his Suzuki, with a new tyre! So even good maintenance doesn’t stop that. Only the fact that he was only doing 60 and could stop in time prevented him getting severe gravel rash or worse. Of course, we were usually doing much, much more than that, racing about on the roads of Wales and some of my old pals are 6 feet under now, or paralysed. And, more or less, they are 6 feet under because they were going to fast. Now I know you can come up with a list as long as your arm of other things it could have been (a broken split pin, a blown out tyre, SMIDSY, diesel oil from the bus, too fast into a bend etc.). But it was, more or less, the rapid deceleration (i.e. speed, velocity, call it what you will) into something solid that killed them. Training and what have you is vital, but the system depends on speed limits right now, and that is how it should stay. People who break them put their own convenience (and fun) before other people's safety.

_________________
I stole this .sig

,

Did you get banned, and have to take it again



Car Test passed

Motorcycle test past

Class 2 LGV test passed

Class 1 LGV test passed.

Consider yourself topped

_________________
Steve