Safe Speed Forums

Perhaps I should have added that in almost 20 years of driving many thousands of miles, that admission has never resulted in me being done for speeding. Exactly what speeds are you talking about 'drifting' up to?

Why is it? I've never said anything that would counter it, and have never denied it.

There was a recent one where the proposal was for all signs to mean kph and the NSL changed to 50mph.


Ever driven in Germany? Many drivers don’t exceed 80mph on dry, clear unrestricted stretches.

You've leapt a big canyon there. Keeping to the speed limit will keep you safer, as it keeps those who are unable to drive fast safely from doing so. Increasing driver education will enable those who can't drive safely within the posted speed limits to improve, and will keep us all safer. Removing speed cameras isn't even an issue in this scenario.

No I'm not. You're seeing things differently, and ignoring a crucial point. Speed is obviously a factor in response, in terms of time. And you are also incorrectly assuming that all hazards are predictable. They are not.




No. You've got a different chart in your head to the one I have in mine. What I said is that there is a basic requirement in terms of awareness and assessment requirements, regardless of speed. Above that, speed is a factor, for the reason I have stated above.

You tell me. I don't consider 'drifting up' by 5mph particularly significant if the conditions permit, and I CERTAINLY wouldn't think twice about exceeding the posted limit in order to overtake a slow moving vehicle if it allowed me to return to safety sooner.

I get the distict feeling that you're getting hung up on the basics without considering that driving has more to do with psycology than physics.

Lets take the argument discussed on C+ about the comparrison between an 'accident' at 30 and an 'accident' at 40. If the driver is doing 30 when conditions permit 40 then he will be bored and distracted and thus more likely to have an accident, yes? If he's travelling at 40 on the same road he may well not have the acccident at all because he's paying more attention and looking further ahead. If he's driving so close to parked cars that he can't see a child waiting to cross then he shouldn't even be doing 30!

Free travelling speed and impact speed are only directly related once you remove the psycological element. In reality there's so much more to it that talking in terms of physics is too simplified.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

You're ignoring the side effects.

And don't forget that we're only here because the results have been very bad indeed. We're just coming up to 10,000 unexpected accumulated road deaths. TRL629 says that can only be because 'drivers are getting worse'. - around 3 years after I warned that drivers were getting worse under the influence of bad policy.

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

I got the SP30 from deliberately speeding, not from drifting over the speed limit. While annoying, I was doing what I shouldn't have been and accepted the punishment. As I said a couple of posts ago, those days are gone. My assertion above still stands.



I said serious. I don't think you need to worry about that one going through.



And what are the limits on these roads? Why should they drive any faster than that? Your underlying view is emerging here.

So you're not actually talking about accidentally drifting over the limit. What you are really unhappy about is being punished for deliberately breaking the speed limit. Two different issues.



You've got it backwards. Aside from incorrectly assuming that children never leap out into the road, you are ignoring the basic physics, as has been described in either this post or that (I can't remember now).

Yes, what is going on in the driver's mind is important, but speed is also important. You can't discount either, so they will always both be a factor in impact speed.

Look at the crash test dummies. Devoid of any psychological elements, they do more damage driving at 40 than 30.

It's not me that's ignoring anything. Read it again, and if you still think I'm ignoring a crucial point, then tell me exactly what it is.

99.9% of hazards (at least!) are entirely predictable. But far more important than that, the vast majority of real world crashes that are killing and injuring don't involve these theoretical unpredictable hazards.

This 'model' that crashes happen when something 'suddenly' happens is more-or-less false. Things only happen 'suddenly' when drivers fail to observe or anticipate them. For experienced drivers this becomes rare.



Yeah. Mine is labelled 'safety'. Yours is marked 'legality'. Mine is calibrated in terms of 'relative', 'appropriate speed'. Yours is calibrated in terms of 'absolute', 'legal' speed. I'll take mine any day of the week, thanks!

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

Smeggy is talking about unrestricted sections of Autobahn where the guideline limit (130kmh = 81mph) is only a recommendation, but there is no enforced speed limit. Motorists in such sections go at the speed they are most comfortable with, and because they are fully aware that others are allowed to go at significantly higher speeds, they also drive with a lot more consideration and lane dicipline.

Most drivers will continue at the 130kmh guideline speed, while others will exploit the lifting of restrictions and drive at 200khm or higher. The safety records on such roads are very good and better than the fully limieted roads in many other countries,

http://gettingaroundgermany.home.att.net/autobahn.htm

No I'm not.

I take it you've never driven a turbo diesel?

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Yup. What has that got to do with having to break the speed limit?

You seem to have a massive blind spot here, and I'm wondering about how to help. I'll already given you reasonable reference material, but as far as I can tell you don't understand it. There's no room for doubt about the point, so I'm more than happy to help you see it.

The potential danger in road transport is massive. At any given moment there's enough kinetic energy in moving vehicles to kill the entire population of the country over and over again. But this energy only gets released in crashes. Most of the time we're not crashing, but more than that, the process of driving is one of active crash avoidance. If every driver shut their eyes for just 20 seconds the resulting carnage would be unimaginable. That's what happens when you inhibit the psychology and unleash the physics.

By comparison, the practical danger in road transport is tiny. Very few journeys end in crashes and 1,000 times fewer end in deaths.

It's the psychology that tames the physics and keeps us safe.

Now try this again:

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

Well, if you've driven a TD for any amount of time then you should understand how the speed can creep up even with a constant throttle position, as the pressure in the turbo gradually builds.

At no point did I say you HAD to break the limit. I think we're talking about too different things. I'm not talking about DELIBERATELY breaking the limit, I'm talking about speed increasing very gradually over time (virtually IMPOSIBLE to notice) whilst attention is focussed elsewhere.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Paul

Making up a new graph so to completely ignore what I am trying to say doesn't help. I have been going to great pains to understand some of the admittedly confusing information you come out with. And now you are assuming more statistics. 99.9% (at least)??

Are you denying that reaction times do not increase at the same rate as speed?

It was said on here earlier that people don't drive at the speed limits because it is safe to do so, but because it is permitted. You have now just said the complete opposite.

People drive at 70 because that is the limit. Whether or not they are capable drivers. Taking evasive action at 70 is more risky than doing so at 30.



Are these the same experienced drivers that are not capable of driving safely past a speed camera?

I feel we are beginning to go round in circles.

And while I'm here, before having to go off for a bit, could you please answer the reasonable question (asked 'elsewhere') as to the origin of the SafeSpeed pages that supposedly came from this site? You know which ones I mean. Were you or were you not the author?

I thought you posted that you deliberately break the speed limit in order to overtake?

Oh Paul.

A car hits a wall at 40mph. A car hits a wall at 30mph. There is a difference in damage.

Please tell me where this is wrong. Without going on about psychology. I am fully aware of what you are saying, but regardless of the amount of brain processing that is responsible for damage. You are trying to discount the one by going on about the other. Neither is mutually exclusive.

Think man! (getting frustrated now!)

Which is more important? The physics or the psychology? How much more important?

Or ask Dr Ladyman who said very recently:

"Because we must always remember that road safety is driven by, above all else, human behaviour."

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

Hello. Been watching from the sidelines for a while.

Just thought I would put my twopennorth in: is this the same speech from Ladyman here where he says that speed cameras are a great success?