Safe Speed Forums

How about reducing or eliminating the random hazards? Fewer hazards means fewer collisions. Why focus on just the 'event horizon' when we can better results by focussing on that which wrongly 'presents itself' within it?


Rubbish!
Who has said those performing the failed manoeuvre in response to a slow driver aren't at any fault?

Besides, there is a difference between being a factor that encouraged the behaviour that led to the poor manoeuvre, and being at fault.

.

What is "safe enough"?


Moderator message:
Due to topic drift, this thread has been split off from this one.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

You see, I don't get that logic (well, I do, I think it comes from people who can't admit that going slower is a better idea in many cases).

If you drive in such a way that either you or something else emerging from a blind spot means you crash you were clearly driving too fast right?

Blaming blindspots is just excusing bad driving surely?

If you run round a corner or a house and bash into somebody else do you blame the person the being there, the wall for being there meaning you couldn't see the person or tell it like it is and blame the person who chose to run round the corner?

I think .. from seeing the Aha-Faktor that this part of German und now Swiss und FRENCH training .. that they make folk more hazard aware ... und this diffuse much in long term. I am going off the reduction in KSI as stats do not suggest these drivers are driving more slowly. These countries have higher motorway limit than here. They have 20 mph .. had for longest time in town centres., since I was a learner driver. I have a son now aged 22 years. I was 18 when I pass test as this was the law. We could begin to train at age 17 but had to be 18 to take test then as now (Which explain current moves for UK .. "harmony". errrr! ) But in recent years they outstrip UK on KSI reduction. OK .,.. more actually die .. but they measure on improvement in percentages.. und these countries are now moving into overtaking UK on raw numbers too.. which mean they outperform. Not that this should be a "competition" All should be aiming arrow at same target (or to make you smile und lighten up .. "apple core"



But you do not ever introduce a hazard for sake of it - as this go against HEALTH & SAFETY LAWS. If you ddeliberately do this .. then you risk undermining insurance policy.. risk prosecution for being a dangerous twazak .. risk your integrity. We all have a duty of care to others. If we deliberately create a danger .. then that make person not only stupid und thicko .. but also a criminal who seek to do malice to another with mens rea und not mens culpa. (I check this out with family legal und also with legal Q&A site on line as well as CAB lawyer whilst out shopping today. All these cannot be wrong. I remind "not very good driver in reality sam" on this one..


IF you smile or groan - donate to charity .. preferably Claire's need If you curse me here - donate double! ) I say it in big mouth mode here. (I reckon I donate at least £30 in family fines here... anyway.. especially for the big letters... So ist's Leben! )



Weepy with respect. If a driver deliberately drive at unrealistically slow speed .. such as 10 mph to 40 mph on motorway or other fast road without any cause .. then they create a hazard. It ist no accident that law prohibit certain cars from motorway world wide. because TOO SLOW. Und if a wide load at slow speed


They alert police.. have legal permit .. issue warning bulletins .. these are under skilled escort... with full warning lights.

If someone deliberately creates a hazard . then they are inconsiderate.. to dangerous und CAN BE BANNED LONGER THAN THE SPEEDER ON 4 PINGS BY MAGISTRATES OR CROWN COURT!

I sorry to shout this. Sometimes needs must! I know weepy not take offence at me .. we agree on many things .. agree to disagree on others und this may be one of the ones me und him have to disagree with each other on. Naturally .. I hope to encourage to what I think to be logic


Pfui Teufel .. I know we are right based on the character assassination attempts on the part of known trolls und SCP deluded

.

What is "safe enough"?[/quote]

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

One could drive wearing blinkers, with no mirrors on your vehicle, the side windows painted over and massive A pillars. Driving without hitting things could be done, but would be tricky. Far better to have good visibility, no?

Weepej, when you are on you bike, there must be times when you are cycling quicker than the traffic flow? Surely you are going to get hurt. How come you can ride your bike without feeling the need to travel no faster than a predetermined speed, but as soon as you get in a powered vehicle you religiously obey the speed limit? I just don't get it.

Well, yes and no.

Sadly I see many people driving or riding like they have got good visibility when they clearly haven't.

And working to improve visibility causes risk compensation, straighten out a bend and people will drive round it faster for instance, so not only do they take away any benefit it causes a disbenefit because the cars going, er, faster and should there be an incident it will probably be more violent.

No .. I must write up "Motorway Cops" from Tuesday,.

Cops sat in the lorry. They "saw" what the driver "saw". Namely . a long vehicle - especially a LH drive one.. will have a serious SMIDSY problem. They rightly suggested on the prog what the late Paul say.. what IG say.. what plod (like Dibble/silver back mike/gone
Tony rec/will crash of old PH vintage repute: Namely to give extra lane clearance if you can. We call it COAST led driving.

I note that some cyclists blamed the pedestrian who die when hit by cyclist who jump red light . ,mounted pavement. und hit that old man. It stil COAST und common sense. If you cannot see distance to be clear.. you slow or stop so how you travel. I recall being on some fair ground ride . I think the pirate ship which plunge into complete darkness. I recall tiptoe walk und feeling my way here as I simply could not see anything,.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

So what if people go around a straightened out corner faster, that's why it was straightened out. There are lots of times where junctions that require people to edge out (the entrance/exit to the farm), surely far better, where possible to have a nice clear view where they only need to give way, not stop to pull out. If everyone can see, the traffic will flow better, less congestion, less crashes. Do you recommend that I remove guarding from shafts so I am less likely to go near them? It amounts to the same thing.

When will the roads be safe enough for you?

Actually, no! That would be a simple case of 'failure to look' of the other driver (likely resulting from inattention).

Blaming blindspots is excusing bad driving, but not the way you interpreted it.


Your analogy is invalid: in your equivalent case, the person running (at speed) wasn't turning any corner; the fault cannot be theirs.
(Am I now at risk of being accused of nit-picking?)

What is "safe enough"?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I go away for a little while and when I get back, weepej's nonsense has reached all new highs, still, it gave me a good laugh.


So in order to establish this, your car is fitted with a calibrated speedo, and you yourself followed the said offenders at the same law breaking speed, or perhaps you are in possesion of an LTI 20:20 speed meter, and you tested the speed of the passing traffic. Or, more likely, your perception is wildly inaccurate.


Which I take to mean that they are driving faster than you, because of course you cannot possibly know what visibility another driver has, unless you are sitting on the drivers lap.


Yes, vision is highly overrated as a safety device isn't it? Honestly, I have never read such drivel.

..and walking. The DfT RCGB stats prove that.


The incident it less likely to occur because the driver can now see the hazard occupy their 'event horizon' and react earlier.
The incident is less likely to happen *again* because the person who would have occupied the 'event horizon' would instead now see the danger and wait until the way is clear.

While there is no doubt traffic speed will be faster where visibility is better (and logically you must accept that drivers indeed do slow down for such hazards otherwise your own argument fails), it will also be generally safer even though even though the outcome of the remaining collisions will be worse (1 negative factor against two positive ones).

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

May I remind you graball, I drive regulary, I cycle 20 miles a day through London, I paraglide, have sailed, skied and I'm just about to go shark diving.

This ridiculous reduction of the argument to the absurdity of suggesting people who want safer roads don't want to leave their homes is getting very dull!

Exactly, Steve, isn't this one of the reasons that motorways are so safe? The line of visibility (assuming it's not congested) is virtually perfect and because drivers have good forward visibility and little to distract them, speeds can be much higher and accidents less frequent.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

NO, weepy, whats getting very dull is your theory that the safer you make roads (by ironing out poor visibility etc) that you are making them (to use your theory) "less safe" simply because it is safe to travel faster on a road with good visibility.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

So, Weepy. when you paraglide would you prefer it to be clear or foggy, when you ski, would you prefer wide open pistes or through trees with poor visibility, when you shark dive would you prefer clear water or murky? To me better visibility would be safest but you seem to think that it encourages "risk taking".

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Sking, I'd go for the trees, but I'll be going SLOWER.

A foogy day in the sky, or a murky day in the water can be just as stunning as a good day.



Only if you're a crap driver who drives too fast in conditions of bad visibility surely?

Take the drivers who do 70 in thick fog, I bet many blame the fog when they drive into the back of a pile up (or blame the pile up), not themselves for driving too quickly in the fog.

Re-read IanH's post and mine on cornering. They are each based on our respecitive training and consolidated in ROADCRAFT


DSA driving standards and the Highway Code each lend further substance.


But if you analyse it all . we me back to that COAST system. You know the one. Marked by DIS and SAC alike .. and refuted because some are intolerantly and complacently DANGEROUS out there BUt basically . the road user is repsonsible and has to apply COAST properly.

Oh pl3eas read Franklin. We say similar here

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

You really are a joke if you think bad visibility is SAFER, ok you (pretend )that you are a risk taker, but you don't come across as one (foolish maybe)

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

I didn't ask what may get your adrenalin going, I asked which is safer, good OR bad visibility?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

No, I'm not saying it's safer. I'm saying it's made more dangerous than needs be, by bad drivers.

Why should a twisty windy road be any more dangerous than a wide open motorway if you're being careful?

Also, I tend not to take risk when other people can be easily killed (unless they're fully consenting to be in an environment where such things can happen, such as a race track).

I wouldn't do power slides on the public road for instance.

And your logic behind this is????

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.