Safe Speed Forums

Err, excuse me!

What on earth are you on about? My work needs all the support it can get.

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

I think Paul, that Johno was jokingly suggesting that use of the abreviation SS might lead to a perceived connection to the Nazis SS - which given the speed at which Steve once reacted to a post of mine on the defunct CSCP forum, seemed to indicate he had considered the connection previously!!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

edited

'S OK. You had me worried there for a sec.

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

Why not promote trying both? It is a very basic and easy skill.

How about trying to prove that as a fact which you have failed to establish? Why are you trying to prove a very close causal link to an increase in fatality risk or outcome for speed enforcement cameras while equally trying to disprove a causal link between the same cameras and a fall in serious road traffic casualty rate? Perhaps the answer is "agenda", fair enough we both have them but at least ours is admitted. I don't see how the 2 causal links can exist together, so which is it?

Yes "Almost all crashes are caused by shortfalls in road user skills or attitudes. Speed cameras diminish skills and worsen attitudes. We shouldn't be surprised that they make worse drivers who crash more." This woudl have to be true before you started out on your quest but it is an assumption you have no substance in maintaining as truth.

Carry on and do so but please start from a base with substance rather than an obvious marketing agenda that is not based on fact.

Quiet day at the office Steve?

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

The distraction effect argument is a fascinating one and there isn't much research. But there is some and one thing the camera partnerships don't seem to know much about is visual processing. I haven't yet seen a scientific argument used by pro-camera people which relates to the established understanding of this. We know that foveal vision (focused vision that you are currently using to read this) is key to hazard perception and that peripheral vision doesn't provide our brains with enough information to recognise potential hazards. But you do use foveal vision to locate cameras and glance at your speedo.

Locating cameras/glancing at the speedo will subtract some attention from the overall finite resource, this is inevitable. You cannot teach yourself to 'find' more attention. The overall increase in risk associated with this speed camera/speedo distraction is yet to be specifically quantified as far as I'm aware, maybe it is neglible as JJ seems to be arguing. But an un-quantified risk remains just that. Without an evidence base, anecdotal, personal beliefs about the lack of distraction, leading to advice to the general public could be extremely dangerous. But in this case there is more research evidence to suggest Safe Speed is right than camera policy. This is a bit irresponsible JJ...

and you were criticising Paul for his lack of evidence...

The problem is that as most motorists approach the cameras, they are affected sub-consiously in several different ways. Some of these only surface if something goes wrong - like the car in front braking hard because they think they may be just over the speed limit.
It's no use saying they are allowed 10%+2, because so few believe they are allowed any latitude, SO THEY WILL SLOW DOWN, and take steps to ensure they are within the limit.
A large number of drivers fear being flashed when in fact they have NOT exceeded the threshold.
How many times have drivers visited this forum saying "I've been flashed but dont think I was over the limit - what do I do?"

Many drivers approach the site, and see the warning signs. They first check their speedo, then look for the camera. They know once they pass the camera, they dont need to watch their speedo - in fact they return to a safe watchful style of driving.
It is that time between seeing the warning, and passing the camera that they concentrate on ensuring they dont transgress the speed limit AT ANY COST, during which something may happen which they will fail to see.

As to whether the camera will ever effectively make driving safer?
It is a giant bit of spin from the Government.
It's like saying the reason so many died following the Titanic disaster, is they drowned, so to prevent more drownings, you ban swimming. Sure enough, in 1913 there are less drownings at sea. SUCCESS - banning swimming has prevented another disaster on the scale of the Titanic.... or has it??
No, it has just shifted it elsewhere!
That is why the Camera symbol looks like the Heysham Ferry lying on it's side...

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

You don't need to look at the speedo at all. The vast majority of people can drive perfectly safely without ever looking at their speedometer ... the only reason it is necessary at all is to check for speed limit compliance. It does not aid safety in any way whatsoever.

Therefore, the more you force people to divert attention to the speedo, the less time they're spending concentrating on the road ahead.

LOL. Steve, are you still chewing on that old chestnut?

In terms of driving safely, which is more important? Looking at the speedo or looking where you are going? Clearly you still think that both are equally important and interchangable.

Just out of interest then, how far can you personally drive, and not hit something, without ever looking out of the windscreen?

Conversely, how far can you drive and not hit something, without knowing your actual speed in miles per hour?

Paul, I think all will agree with your first statement and it is based in fact.
Not sure about the next two statements. As my stab, I would say - "speed cameras can divert attention from hazard awareness to speed awareness. In some circumstances this could lead to accidents that might not otherwise have happened."

http://www.humanfactors.uiuc.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/TechReport/03-1.pdf

This is an interesting paper. Not speedo specific but arguably transferable.