Safe Speed Forums

Why?


And Yusuf does have some good things to say. I think you should give more credit to C+ers to be able to decide for themselves.

jub jub\Mr Paul

Yosuf has been banned at least 6 times under different names from C+.

He was also banned from here, pistonheads and the evening standard forum. Probably several more I am not aware of.

That's a big question!

First one needs to define what driver quality is. The contributory factor information is helpful because it shows that the vast majority of crashes are associated with errors rather than violations. The skills that contribute to driver quality are clearly defined in Steve Haley's new book MIND DRIVING see http://www.safespeed.org.uk/minddriving.html

Steve also wrote: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sss.html where he describes the sort of 'risk management model' that underpins ALL successful driving. The better the data fed to the risk model and the more accurate the model the better the knowledge of the risk and the more opportunity there is to minimise risk.

Perhaps then have a look at this recent thread: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11112 Especially ensure that you read enough to understand the point in the last post.

I guess that's about one third of a proper answer to your question, but the step is probably quite big enough for one forum post.

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

The question's the wrong way round. That's the problem. The cameras were hailed as the answer to 'bad' driving, because apparently the only way to prove that someone's driving is 'bad' is to catch them speeding.

You can't remove bad driving with cameras and I think I'm right in saying that that's the basis of Paul's argument.

A personal question if I may, and please don't take this to be an insult. You seem to sing one way on here and another way on C+. If you're not happy being the 'go between' then don't do it.

I take personal offence to certain members of the C+ comunity taking random snipits of my postings here and bending them to their own ends. That was the main reason I was reluctant to reveal my identy/location there. Some of the posts on C+ just read like petty name-calling because there's no genuine argument to be made.

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

We're all well aware of that. It doesn't mean that everything he says is wrong.

Pettiness that members of both sides are guilty of, but that's beside the point.

I'm not insulted. I don't swing either way, being both a cyclist and a driver. I have opinions, and rather than listen to second-hand information would prefer to have the discussion face-to-face (on here). If that means even slightly bridging a gap between the sensible on here and the sensible on C+ then I'm happy.

Back to your first response. You're missing my point. If the danger around cameras is down to poor driving, and you remove the poor driving, then what is wrong with the camera being there?

IMO, the cameras are a placebo.

Why would they be needed? It is a rather sad fact that most speed cameras are installed where none of the multiple KSIs used to justify their subsequent placement at that location could have been affected even with use of the camera.


Part of the problem is that they are now enforcing what many now accept to be unnecessarily low speed limits, hence inducing abnormal driver behaviour (distraction, braking) as well as unfairly penalising those who are driving in a safe and considerate manner.

There is also an underlying problem of the message behind them. “speed kills – you must stay within the limit”, coupled with a great many of the obviously unnecessarily low speed limits, now means that drivers are now routinely ditching their judgement and are instead using the speed limit as their guide; this is dangerous as the posted limit is often higher than what conditions will safely allow - the lack of subsequent accident being down to luck and/or the skill of other drivers.

There is also the rather frustrating issue of how this great resource (the SCPs) could have been better used instead of funding the nationwide speed camera system – all that resource for what is actually less than 2% of the overall problem (when summing the accidents contributors individually).


I hope all can understand, there are problems with speed cameras

Right. Thanks for the links.

I've had a look at the book review and obviously can't comment on the book, having never read it, but the bits that can be read seem to be suggesting that people can be lulled into a false sense of security by relying on posted limits and advice. All fine. And something that a developing driver obviously needs to take into account and learn from. I'm sure no-one is suggesting that we remove all directions from the roads, whether they be speed limits, priority markings, road markings or traffic lights.

And I've read Steve's article, which again makes sense. I note that he acknowledges that speed is something that needs to be considered along with the other factors when considering road safety, and is not the exclusive factor.

I've also read the thread you linked to. It's a discussion between a group of people about learning and developing better driving. The part that does refer to speed suggests that speed limits must be something that one has to focus on, and so one becomes distracted from the rest of the observational and mechanical aspects of their driving. And I think this is where I disagree at the moment.

Regardless of whether or not the current speed limits are appropriate, they are there. Acceptance of this while they are in place, and a decision to follow them starts the process of removing the focus. The obvious point needs to be made that a speed limit is not something to be achieved, and so the idea that they remove the ability to develop ones own sense of safety becomes one-sided -there is plenty of room to develop this below the speed limit.

I would suggest that a fixation on speed limits even before getting into a vehicle is dangerous. Eliminate this and you will soon find that you drive capably within the limit without the need to be focussed on your speed. Then both the limit and speed cameras cease to become a distraction.

Remove the feeling of needing to scrutinise every bridge, bush, bend and parked van, and the anxiety that is associated with this, and you instantly remove several of the steps in your theoretical 7.

As with your post Paul, merely a selection of observations and comments, and not a closed case.

That doesn't answer my question though, does it? If we were all driving safely within the limits then the camera is not a problem to anyone. Whether or not the current speed limits are appropriate, and whether they should be enforced, is a different argument.

I would be interested to see your evidence on your claim about the KSIs.

I knew someone would say that, hence the rest of my post which did - which you didn’t quote


They are for reasons I have already described in the rest of my previous post.


Google for dft_transstats_612594

No, the rest of your post argues that some speed limits are unnecessarily low. That has nothing to do with the camera being there, unless you are ignoring the speed limit.

I'm having trouble understanding your other comment. Could you please explain how the dft report you quote leads you to the conclusion that you have made?

- “inducing abnormal driver behaviour (distraction, braking)”
- “drivers are now routinely ditching their judgement and are instead using the speed limit as their guide”
- “this great resource (the SCPs) could have been better used instead of funding the nationwide speed camera system”




“all that resource for what is actually less than 2% of the overall problem (when summing the accidents contributors individually).”

I gave a simplified overview; perhaps it would be more straightforward if you examined table 2 of the analysis. You will see that there are many contributing factors to accidents; you will also see their weighting. Sum these up and weigh up against the “exceeding the speed limit” factor, then consider those who remain untouchable to speed cameras: the unregistered, cloners, joyriders.....

I've also tried making the point that driver education is the main key to improving road safety, but this seemed to go over the heads of most of the C+ posters.

Some responded by saying that increased education will give drivers more confidence, thus making roads more dangerous and one recently said that once a driver has passed their driving test at 17, what more do they have to learn?

Look back at the post of mine that you originally responded to, and in particular the bit before the comma-



We were past the first two of your points above. Your response of 'bad driving makes them a problem' doesn't make sense in this case.



I did. As I understand it, it claims that driving over the speed limit was a factor in 12% of fatalities.

This statement is completely untrue.

http://www.cyclingplus.co.uk/forum/topi ... _ID=115888

Jub Jub / Mr Paul,

I'm afraid that you are mistaken.

You may want to re-read the Dianne Abbot thread on Campaign, where I had a number of protracted discussions with various posters on the merits of road safety education. I started at around page 14, if that helps.

Perhaps the training could be paid for with some of the £50 billion annually that motorists contribute to the taxman.

I wouldn't even mind if drivers had to pay for the education / re-testing themselves, as long as this would have a positive effect on road safety.

Yeah, I remember now. Your statement is still wrong. You had an argument and a few people disagreed with you. The argument was not just about education. Now re-read the comment that I have quoted from you. It's a gross exaggeration, and as such untrue.