Safe Speed Forums

There's the question of perspective...

First. The driver being tailgated. As above. Get clear or other wise make it as safe as possible. I didn't make it clear that this was the only perspective I was talking about. (Well, it IS my favourite.)

Second. The tailgating driver. An ignorant type who needs to think more carefully.

Thirdly. Policy makers. They need to recognise the problem and provide advice and maybe enforcement tools.

Fourthly. The enforcers. They need to recognise bad driving (including tailgating) and react appropriately. Sometimes advice, sometimes prosecution.

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

We don't assume.

We do know that most speeds are safe because if they weren't there would be many more crashes.

But the important bits are these:

It's not about how safe we are, but instead it's about what's important. I'de love to see more "safe speed" messages, we could have more safe speed behaviour, and that would be a very good thing. We'd all be safer.

We know from simple logic and observation that safe speed behaviour is important, yet, the official emphasis is entirely on speed limit compliance.

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

Paul, Yeah possibly you are right here - we should be concentrating people about speed limit compliance but at the same time we should be hammering home the safer behaviour of drivers at any speed.

As a police officer I would be very unhappy if some of the speed limits were increased (with the exception of the motor-way by 10mph). My reasons for this is the level of competance of most drivers. I would guess that most of the poeple that post on this site are, by the very fact they are posting here, aware of the dangers of speed and are safe drivers. But most of the public in this land are not and without educating them further and changing driving behaviour it simply would not be safe to mess with limits (other than reducing them).

Tailgating is just one problem that we see that emphasises the bad driving of many people. More cars, more frustration, anger etc only add and compund the issue. I would be perfectly happy if drivers allowed sufficient gaps, allowed escape routes (Roadcraft again) between vehicle and didn't do silly things like creating three lines of traffic to overtake. If people complied with some of the simple safety rules of the road we could quite easily raise many of the limits to match the current level of modern motorcars.

The government really needs to do more than just punish the motorist - it needs to educate as well, but, I guess that this will cost and if it means paying out then it's not likely to happen unless funded by the drivers.

I really hope this makes sense - I was writing it in a hurry coz I'm off out. If I didnt explain what I mean't well enough let me know and I'll do it again.

Rich

But by this logic tailgating could also be considered safe because, if it wasn't, there would be far more multiple vehicle shunts on motorways where vehicles are regualrly to be seen following in conga file with only a cars length or so between them.

That's not right is it? By far the most common accident type in "tailgating environments" (like motorways) is the shunt.

Very few (if any???) enviroments have such an emphasis on crashes involving excessive speed. (We might talk about bend accidents, but the usual error on bends is failure to correctly assess the hazard - not really the same factor as most other sorts of excessive speed.)

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

rigpig, if you could tell me how to do quotes I'd quote you . But you said something about if you are not prepared to travel fast than 80 you shouldn't be in L3. The general rules on motorways are keep left are they not? Now, my car is not very fast at all and overtakes take a bit of foward planning and a few days notice to the boys in the boiler room . So as a result if someone wants to get past I just let 'em past. No big deal.
I'm not going to drive along a road holding people up. Also if I left them go then they arn't tailgating me anymore and arn't my problem.


I've had bad whiplash after a dip stick opened his door on my while I was out running and got my neck broke at work in July I don't think it would be third time lucky for me!

Yep. I agree. We should reset some modern "politically motivated" speed limits, but by and large we do have speed limits about right.

I also have reservations about alterig the motorway speed limit. I fear the only speeds we'd actually change would be those of the least experienced drivers. It'd be nice to have a better margin from the risk of prosecution, but then the problem isn't the speed limit, it's the mindless enforcement.

I do believe we should run a motorway speed limit experiment as soon as possible as detailed in the Safe Speed manifesto.

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

Would It really be worth the aggravation? Damage to your car? The Inconvience of going through The Insurance for someone elses stupidity?

_________________
RoADA Member -GOLD 2008
If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.

OK, I was just voicing my 'gut instinct' that, with the habitual and almost mandatory tailgating I see each morning and evening on the M54, there should be more multiple vehicle shunts than there actually are.



Just press the quote button in the top right corener of the post you wish to quote. It'll quote the whole post, just delete the bits you don't want quoting. You'll see how a quote is formatted that way too. (How many times can you quote the word quote in one quote )




And herein lies my mental predicament with Pauls core arguments. Most of the folks who post here do so because of a shared interest in the process of driving and of road safety, plus a dislike (with varying degrees of passion) for speed enforcement in its current form. Many of the topics posted here discuss the issues to a depth that many of the driving public are either not prepared to consider themselves or (and I'll say this at the risk of appearing arrogant) are capable of considering themselves.
For the vast majority, driving is the process of fumbling for the keys at the start of the journey, doing stuff in the middle, some of which may be that "ill advised but what the hell everyone does it and if I didn't do it as well I never get anywhere" kind of stuff then chucking the keys on the mantlepice at the end and forgetting about the whole thing.
For these people, simplicity is the key, and if that means driving below the speed of an arbitrary limit then thats the way it has to be. Meanwhile the more considered drivers get 'penalised'...<shrugs>.
The idea of a multiple tiered system in which drivers qualified to a higher level are less constrained seems attractive (particlarly if you are already an advanced driver) but the practicalities render the entire idea fanciful and unworkeable.



This is the really sad part isn't it? We've had two reports this year damning the standard of motorway driving in the Uk (Lane Discipline and Tailgating) and yet nothing gets done to educate motorists out of these bad habits. As a result, bad habits become 'driving norms' and then where do we go?

Hmmm, was that a bit of a rant? Hope not

I think I can answer that comprehensively and simply.

We don't need to suddenly improve everyone's driving. What we do need to do is start to shift the average in the right direction. We actually have a fine road safety system - more or less the best in the world. We have that despite an awful lot of bad driving. The following graph must be true:



We should be working on educational messages for the large middle group and remedial training and driving prohibitions for the dangerous lower group. We can soon start to move the average by a few percent each year, and this would result in real long term sustainable improvements.

It's not about "wholesale change". It's about making sure that shifts are always in the right direction.

And for my evidence that this is real, we only have to look at other countries accident rates (all higher - and most are many times higher.) What's the main difference? Average driver quality.

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

I don't accept that the average driver in the UK is of a higher quality than his German counterpart, far from it.

Whichever percentage of the driver population we aim to improve, the messages have to be simple, complicate them or leave them open to interpretation and you're back to square one. Because lets face it, one thing folks have gotten pretty good at is intepreting rules to their own benefit. Thus,

Obey the 2-second rule is simple
Move to the lane to your left when your overtake is complete, is simple
Drive safely within the speed limit is a simple message. It may not be to everyones liking or suite their immediate needs, but its simple.

In these terms, there's little difference in accident rate between the UK and Germany. At present rates of change the German fatality rate will be below ours in 2007. Average driver quality is "the main factor", but it isn't the only factor.

Anyway, what's the betting that the German accident rate would be below ours already if we excluded non-German drivers crashing on German roads?



The trouble with that last one is that it's WAY too simple. we already have almost universal "safe speed behaviour" - crashes are rare. Unsafe speed crashes caused or contributed to by normal responsible motorists are incredibly rare, yet exceeding the speed limit is ubiquitous.

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

Why? We already have three classes of driver in a car (and on a bike for that matter) that is reasonably well enforced and heeded so far as I can tell, viz, Learners - must be L plated - must be accompanied, must not go on motorways.... and "Qualified" - the above does not apply, and "blues-and-twos" who may with care break a number of traffic rules.

How about a group of "superqualified" ? There could be a special character alongside the number plate that is activated by pressing a code on the dash. Displaying such an emblem while not superqualified could be similar for penalties to damaged/missing number plate - in fact to all intents and purposes it could have the same effect for automatic enforcement - but it could render one liable to a spot-check stop of course for indifferent driving. Newly qualified numpties get stopped soon after they've passed their test quite often due to what appears like "learnerism" - the superqualified-displaying cars, while immune from the auto-scameras, could well get a tug if their driving is not above average - and I would approve of that too. Application for and award of the status would therefore, rightly, be a double-edged sword.

The changing demographics of the driving population in all its many aspects may have served to 'complicate' the accident and fatality statitics for all countries so affected.



No it isn't too simple. 'Speed Kills' is too simple. Enforcing the speed limit rigidly without acknowledging the frailties of the human machine is too simple.
But sending out the message that you should drive safely within the prescribed limit is a good rule of thumb. It doesn't work for all situations, as I'm sure the 'Scenario Builders' here present would be quick to demonstrate, but it acts as a fair base.



So we don't really need to complicate the issue any further really.



As I said, fanciful.

Just what priviliges do these Superqualifieds get? Permission to drive faster? Where and when? On the M6 amongst the push and shove of all the other drivers? Nahhh. Its one for all and all for one I'm afraid.
Unless you build Super roads for these superqualifieds, activated by........etc etc

One of the planks of the SafeSpeed argument is that a set of speed limits that acts as a fair base is counterproductive if (and only if) it is enforced! The view seems to be that drivers should have access to training, education and information, and that things will then sort themselves out, relying on the British sense of fair play and a bit of a ticking off from the bobby. Some fellow posters think that speed limit enforecement confuses 'ordinary' drivers and makes them act dangerously, yet they have faith that such drivers will not be confused by a deluge of training information and education! There is a lot of irony here, especially when my fellow posters fail to realise that they too are 'ordinary' drivers, as far as the coppers are concerned.

It has always seemed to me that a stick, as well as a carrot, is needed, although scorn has been poured on that idea as if it were the work of the devil!

_________________
I stole this .sig

The critical oversimplification is in "drive safely". It tells us very little. As a definition of our responsibility it's helpful, but it tells us exactly nothing about what it means to "drive safely" - How do we do it? What does it involve? To make matters worse, you coupled it to "within the speed limit".

To my mind: "Drive safely within the speed limit" communicates little or nothing more that "stick to the speed limit", and even carries the usual risk of miscommunicating the erroneous message "stick to the speed limit and you'll be safe".

I can't think of another example offhand, but whenever we couple a complex idea (drive safely) with a simple idea ("within the speed limit") the simple idea takes over and the complex idea submerges.

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

Our driving lessons and tests (to varying degrees of success) teach and test for 'safe driving' practices albeit at a basic level. This element of the phrase does not therefore need overcomplication or expansion, most people would have a pretty fair idea of what it means and what constitutes it. To suggest otherwise, diminishes the weight of the above assertion relating to driver quality in the UK. All that is required is to gently remind drivers of the salient points they learned from time to time.

Within the speed limit communicates much more than 'stick to the speed limit', unless we are arguing semantics again. The key word is 'within'. It means that the speed limit is sometimes too fast, drivers must recognise and accomodate such situations, just as they did when they were learning. If the message 'stick to the speed limit and you'll be safe' is what is being received by the driving public, then the message needs tweaking slightly, it doesn't need overcomplicating or confusing because the attention span of the modern indivual may not stretch that far.

How very twisted. I'm even more convinced you're something to do with speed cameras despite earlier protestations.

I've got no objection to the proper application of the stick, when the preciipitating violation involved is a real safety violation.

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

Just press the quote button in the top right corener of the post you wish to quote. It'll quote the whole post, just delete the bits you don't want quoting. You'll see how a quote is formatted that way too. (How many times can you quote the word quote in one quote )


why thank you very much, you never catch me missing something staring me in the face

Had to think about this one for a wee while, but I'm not sure its such a twisted view. I have previously proposed that there exists a dichotomy between the trust we wish to place in drivers to correctly assess their immediate driving environment and behave appropriately, and the idea that many people are being duped by the 'speed kills' message.
Its either one way or the other. If they cannot understand the message 'drive safely within the speed limit', we're screwed.