Safe Speed Forums

It is just the enforcement, then.



So should the law and the highway code say "drivers MUST drive less that the absolute top limit", or say that "drivers MUST BROADLY drive less that the absolute top limit". Please explain the wording you suggest.



And the differance between 35 µg /100ml and 35.5 µg /100ml is irrelevant, except to a judge, to whom it is very different indeed! Speed limits are hard limits.

_________________
I stole this .sig

I have to give a two part answer.

The most urgent and important thing is to leave the Highway Code as it is and simply return to the road safety policies (and enforcement practice) we had 15 years ago.

But I think we should in time rewrite much of the Highway Code with a new style of emphasis. I don't think there's much room for doubt that the key to road safety is culture, but none of the text in the Highway Code deliberately reflects the fact. Nothing in the Highway Code is designed to enhance the safety culture as such - instead it is intended to define a series of behaviours. My all new Highway Code would be much more about defining and encouraging a series of attitudes.



Hard limits are not serving us well. Time for a rethink. We should start by enforcing limits with discretion and intelligence.

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

I'd like to put that very differently...

Just who on Earth are you Basingwerk? Surely you have something to do with the current road safety establishment? I know this has been asked and answered before, but I just can't make sense of it.

Please let's have a comprehensive answer.

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

bw



I see. Could you clarify a point for me please? Is it dangerous because that is the speed you are driving at or dangerous because you are exceeding the limit?

You didn't answer my other question. Do you consider driving at 70 on a motorway safe, given optimum conditions?




Ah yes, the standard attack. I am merely trying to establish your own attitude to speed, speed limits and levels of acceptable risk. Not when your are on this board but when you are actually out on the road.

So do you drive at around 70 in a 70 in good conditions?

Italian Highway Code Updated January 2003 (Translated)

Read section D and weep Basingwerk. Evidence that a country's legislature can recognise the meaning of 'safe speed for the conditions'. Seems that the elected representatives of 5 million people disagree with you.

(and I was wrong - it's 150 km/h!!)

I'll contact Prime Minister Berlusconi immediately!

_________________
I stole this .sig

This is a critical difference. It is, in very general terms, dangerous to drive at high speed, even if you are the only user of the road. This is because you are less able to slow down or stop or steer away when hazards occur, in terms of reaction time and distance travelled while actually shedding speed. In this case, driving in excess of 70 on a motorway is dangerous because 70 is a high speed.

Additionally, when other road users are sharing the road, another aspect is introduced. Specifically, lane sharing depends on synchronised acquisition and release of lane resources. Synchronisation is made much more difficult by mixed traffic at largely disparate speeds. This aspect is related (via the politics of driving) to the law, inasmuch as the driving community has settled on the 70 limit, which in turn creates standard lane speed expectations for synchronised acquisition and release of lane resources. It is far from perfect, like a data bus, but it seems to serve that purpose. A similar condition exists for town driving, where the focus is more on the synchronised acquisition and release of other road resources, such as lanes at junctions, roundabouts and traffic lights and so on. Again, synchronisation would be more difficult by mixed traffic at dissimilar speeds, and no realistic user-expectation could be set. This means that a compromise is in the offing, and much of the material on this site is uncompromising, including some of my own, hence the friction.

For example, the roads are not for fun, but for getting about on quickly and safely, but I sense that some posters here are sports car drivers put out by restrictions. To bad for them, but serious drivers don’t want speed kids attached to their bumpers!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Surely if you are the only road user, and assuming the road is perfectly maintained, weather conditions and visibility are perfect and roadside fencing has been properly maintained so that nothing/no-one strays on the road, your vehicle has been correctly maintained and you are a competent and alert driver (just accept for a minute that such a thing exists and stop patronisingly assuming the driver is an idiot) then there is little or no inherent danger at all??

You choose to quantify a factor other than speed (ie. 'the only user of the road') then ignore its or any other factor's relative impact on the overall safety of the scenario, again equating the whole safety scale to mph.

Travelling at speed in excess of 80 or even 90 mp/h (150 km/h even ) is negligibly more dangerous in the above scenario as there will be no hazards to stop for or steer round. Speed per se is not dangerous, only excess speed for the prevailing conditions.

Are you starting to understand this yet??

BW

OK, so as you think that 70 is a high speed, could you tell me what a low speed is (for a motorway).

And could you please answer my other question?? Do you drive around-about 70mph in a 70 zone, given optimum conditions?

This is basically what we do when we stop people in our patch - sure - we hit those driving at inappropriate speed - but we target just as many defectives, erratics, and do the routine document checks ....

Funny - by lecturing the inattentive on COAST - patch has lowest accident rate in UK. Cannot be co-incidence that prioritising and policing properly appears to have better results than too many speed cams.

Will venture as far as agreeing that they can be useful tool in certain blackspot areas - but over reliance does not appear to work. Better to have SIDs, etc to alert to danger - and this backed up by a scam if found to be absolutely necessary.

Lancs have right idea with their Speed Course - but they were pitching at the wrong catchment. It will be interesting to find out whether or not they are applying their revised rules of "warning letter up to "10% + 4" and course offered to those up "10% + 6" as alternative to points.... and it will be even more interesting to compare the KSI figures from more "reasonable" approach to the absolutely draconian approach.

As I understand from colleagues - this course is more about hazard perception than speeding.... and their "Driver Improvement" (most Forces operate this now) - is one of the best in country from what I gather again from colleagues. This is offered to those involved in minor crunches to which police were called and both drivers - regardless of fault - are usually invited to help them learn and understand how accidents can occur.



That is the RIGHT way forward... but ....costs money .....

Don't hold your breath!

Basingwerk - you have pasted yourself into a corner. You use extenuating circumstances to explain why speed is dangerous then in the same post give 70mph as an absolute measure of danger. Your argument doesn't back up your assertions. Indeed, you are giving a very strong case for the SafeSpeed approach.

Well.... I uphold the law ... have to

But everybody breaks this law by small margin and for a very short distance every time they get in their car.

Said before - the Mad Doc has said it too - choice of tyre, road surface, camber, crown of road .... all influence speed - resulting in a blip that BiBs usually take into account when out and about on road.

The difference is where you speed, by what margin and danger element... and we have pulled at 10% only in some cases. But then - BiBs know where the danger spots actually are and target and prosecute accordingly. The speed cam - well - I just have to say that I have noted a lot of bizarre sitings for these in the Partnership areas.

But - like the speed camera - we cannot be everywhere - but unlike the speed camera - the good folk in my patch have no idea where we are larking around

I cannot think of a single example of where a speed camera would be more effective than having traffic police around...

Of course, if the police give you a guarantee of sole passage, and the maintenance men have scoured to road for imperfections, and God has postponed all fog, rain and wind for the time being, and all the farmers and fencers have been warned of your trip and taken and your car has been serviced the night before and the doctor gives you a check up before the race, sorry trip, then things should be fine, even if you go at 75 mph, but only if the cameras have been switched off for the day.


I might be more conventient to use a race track, though.

_________________
I stole this .sig

R11co is right - it was increased as Berlusconi wanted people to arriva aliva and moltissimo alerta....

But it only applies to certain stretches and all autostrade revert to 110 kph in poor weather conditions.

Certainly all official data from Italy seems to sugggest this increase has not at all compromised their RTA/C figures - in fact they have recorded less "Incidente" on these stretches since they introduced the change back in 2003. (This is available on some Italian gov web site . have print out somewhere but have mislaid my desk under load of paperwork ........)

70 is a high speed. A low speed depends.
Why do you ask? Optimum conditions, if I'm in a hurry, about 70, yes.

_________________
I stole this .sig

But rc11co did say road have been resurfaced



He did say good visibility - and he will ,of course be taking vicarious enjoyment from his car wearing best quality Dunlops, Goodyears, Michelins , Continentals or Pirellis...... - even changing to winter ones .....





He did say all these had been checked.... He would be perfectly safe - as he would be on mainland Europe.....

Most of us could cope with speed limit of 80 mph - even me!

Sure it does not creep up? To 75-76mph?

If there are road works - then I would certainly not drive at anything above 50mph - and if the tempo was set at 40 mph and lower - then again - I would certainly comply with it - unless I had a call which demanded I put on the the old whoo-whoos, and flashing lights ... and floor it ..... and even then - I would make absolutely sure of safety to me and others.....

Similarly if visibility and weather conditions were poor - then again the appropriate speed, distance and lighting would be applied.

Basingwerk - mate - they drive perfectly safely at 81.25 mph (and higher in some places) on continent and they do adhere to the 67mph maximum in poor weather conditions.

What we have to address here is the training element and try to steer from politically correct and selfish attitudes back to the healthier fair norm which gave us a sterling reputation worldwide.
Focusing on all aspects of driving and related behaviour patterns and offering remedial training is one way of chipping away at the problem.

Focusing on one aspect of road safety is not resolving any of the problems and is probably leading to a worsening of a bad situation as well.

I am trying to establish your "rules" for risk/benefit.




Why do you need to go so fast? Don't you realise that if you drove slower you would have a shorter stopping distance and would be less likely to have an accident or less likely to be seriously injured if you did have an accident?

Why do you take this reckless, irresponsible approach to driving on the public roads? You should slow down to, say, 50mph as it would be much safer for you and those around you.

Basingberk,

As you have done so often before, you fail to address the slightest contra-indication which may weaken your pre-conceived conclusions. You have the intellectual ability to analyse rationally but you fail to do so. Try using the other half of your brain.



Probably true but neither is it conducive to road safety for all traffic to be travelling at (more or less) the same speed. That results in bunching and tailgating. Whether you like it or not, road safety is and will remain primarily in the hands of drivers and accident causation depends upon a wide range of driver actions and reactions of which speed is but one component. While speed limits represent an important and useful guide to safe speeds, excessive enforcement is usurping the individual's primary responsibilty for road safety and is dragging down the overall standard of driving.

The simple and blindingly obvious truth is that in order to improve road safety, we need more drivers who voluntarily (through a combination of encouragement and judicious enforcement) acquire and exercise higher levels of driving skill. It follows that the continuing obsession with speed enforcement is wrong and counter-productive - and not just to road safety.