Safe Speed Forums

Lawman1965 and I had the following exchange in the "Speed Kills?" thread.



For those of you not familiar with Roadcraft page 11 here it is:



(The text at the bottom is usually upside down, but I messed with it.)

Now Roadcraft is a great book and contains great information. I recommend it to everyone. But page 11 is utter garbage. I don't know how it got in there.

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

My take is as follows - in the order given:

5 - utter tosh.
5 - speed should be set prevalent to all conditions, irrespective of posted limit.
1 - unless there are extenuating circumstances (rare but possible)
3 -speed should be set prevalent to all conditions, irrespective of posted limit. The chances are the safe speed will be slower than in the dry, but still may be in excess of the posted limit.
3 - drivers should not have to face this dilemma. the odd time I've faced it, I've given the numpty a rerasonable opportunity to mend his ways, then I've cautiously undertaken the undertaking.
5 - speeding is a "crime" that in itself has no consequences to anyone and should not in itself be indictable unless supplementary to antisocial driving (tailgating, aggression, sudden lane changing etc) - and of course dangerous driving, careless driving or causing an accident.
5 - Utter tosh, positively dangerous - places eyes on dashboards instead of hazards.

Total 27. My - I should be banned - I am, according to this, more than five times the accident risk of Mr Average.

Anyone scored over 27?

I have copied Rogers post and amended it with some of my views.

5 - Ditto - They should be increased.
5 - Ditto
1 - Ditto
3 - Ditto
5 - Ditto except I strongly disagree
5 - Ditto
5 - Ditto

Total 29.

Maybe I should be banned too but I have only had one accident (on the road) that I was in any way responsible. Five accidents in total:

1. Driving too fast at the ripe old age of 19 and crashed into a car coming out of a side street (I was a class one moron until about 21)
2. at 3mph while turning, numpty had no headlights and was pissed off his head and hit me (I've posted the details before)
3. at less than the limit when a car turned right directly in front of me
4. I was stationary and a car drove out of a side street directly into me (he was looking right and didn't see me directly in front of him!@#!)
5. a 4wd pulled up beside me, straddling the centre divide, as I turned right.

And I have been driving for around 34 years.

ps. This does not include falling off a motor bike three times at under the speed limit. I don't ride any more, can you guess why?

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

5 - Where is the evidence?
5 - Why?
4 - What happened to rehabilitating the offender, many of us were complete idiots in our youth mainly due to poor driver education and lack of experience. Add to the mix competitive male, and live forever attitude.
3 - The limit is largely irrelevent, it's the prevailing conditions that should govern your speed.
5 - What a eutopia that would be
5 - What is more severe than losing your licence and possibly your job.
3 - 20 limit is OK as advisory but difficult to enforce and or comply with without becoming a dangerous distraction.

Max

_________________
Tailgaters - Please Pass
You have an Accident to go to!

OK.

5 - It seems highly likely that motorway speed limits should be increased.
5 - It's extremely important to drive to the conditions.
5 - The courts must decide on a punishment according to all the circumstances of the offence. Some life bans would be good. A firm rule would be bad.
5 - People should drive to the conditions at all times.
4 - I'm no fan of undertaking in normal conditions, but "never" is simply too strong.
5 - Penalties for purely technical speeding offences are far too high. Present penalties are fine for the rarely detected safety violations.
4 - 20mph speed limits require too much driver attention.

I score 33.

Edited to add: Lawman1965, I'd be very interested to see your honest personal responses...

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

5 - The maximium allowed speed should be increased; it doesn't mean you HAVE to drive at the limit all the time though, if the conditions aren't right.

4 - As far as road safety is concerned, it isn't particularly important to keep within the limit. However, the limit can give you a guide to what conditions to expect ahead (if it hasn't been tampered with for political reasons.)

4 - People should be banned for life in some cases, but not routinely.

3 - Depends on what the limit is and what the safe speed for the road is. A lot of the time, people should drive slower than the limit, but only if the limit is set sensibly.

3 - Most of the time I agree, as things stand. I think any wholesale shift to allowed undertaking wouldn't be a bad thing in itself, but all drivers need to know what to expect, and as things stand people won't be expecting others to do it.

5 - When this was written they probably didn't expect to see 30mph limits on dual carriageways, set for political reasons. The majority of incidents of 'speeding', as in exceeding the posted limit, should be ignored completely. If, on the other hand, they said 'driving faster than is safe', I would agree.

5 - 10-20mph without any deviation above it at all requires focusing close to 100% of your attention on the speedo and the controls, and places massive pressure on the driver. It turns driving into something similar to the party game with the wire loop and the buzzer, which it doesn't need to be. This is unacceptable as the driver should be free to watch the road ahead and look out for hazards.

What's the betting that the people who agree with all those statements drive very infrequently?

The fact that they have 5 times fewer crashes than people who drive 20 times more miles is not necessarily an indication of increased safety. it is however, typical of the political pseudo-science used by the anti-car obsessed road safety groups.

Ah Paul,

Not just that silly test in Roadcraft - I thought you were referring it the text that accompanies it in the chapter. The point I made was Atttitude and how that can effect your driving and not Attitude to speed - although that does have an effect.

I was a neutral on speed based on that test. Some I agreed with some I didn't.

I don't have a copy of roadcraft here - what else does it say about attitude to driving? Is there something in it about your mental state, stress levels etc? Thats what I was on about - when I did my advanced we had a long and boring lecture, over 2 hours, about essential attitudes and it was one of the things we were marked on during the course........

Rich

Most of the Roadcraft attitude stuff is absolutely spot on.

However, we need to be aware of the "influences" that allowed the 1994 edition of Roadcraft to include the page 11 nonsense. There are a few other signs of the same influences dotted around, and Roadcraft is by far the poorer for it. I don't believe that there's a single word in the 1977 (previous) edition that I would disagree with.

(1994 and 1977 are major edition changes - reprints contain exactly the same information, but the cover changed a couple of years ago.)

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

5 M/way speed limit should be increased
5 The road conditions dictate a safe traveling speed
1 100%
3 Road conditions, traffic etch, etch dictate speed, not just rain
5 Cars should not travel in the overtaking lane
5 Penalties for causing accidents should be more severe, not the scape goat.
5 Pedestrians should not be on the road and are responsible for their own duty of care.

_________________
Steve

Only just over 2 hours? The one we got - went on for three and a half hours. I remember it well as it was in the morning and by the time it got to lunch time - my stomach was making some embarrassing sounds I got some funny looks!

But yes - they assessed our attitude - and if we showed signs of over confidence - they'd fail us!

Attitude was part of what I was getting at in the "Rainbow" thread ... family disagrements, arguments with the boss... these all affect us whatever we are doing - whether in a car or walking to "cool off" Unfortunately, these are the very things which affect the overall concentration in the car.

I reckon - keeping cool and calm, not getting upset by numpties, learning from mistakes, evaluating each drive objectively, being aware of one's vulnerability (essential to hazard perception ), making sure I have enough sleep, being aware of how the time of day can affect me - keeping bag of dougnuts and flask of hot black coffee, and taking 20 minutes or so to scoff them - keeps up the energy levels.

As for page 11 itself .... let's just say it was included to palcate "Brake"

Been away for a while so just found this thread....

I'm so glad to see i'm not the only one who thought that page 11 was a complete load of c**p!

I remember when i read 'The Bible' for the very first time (whilst hoping to get to drive 1.3 Fiesta's, woo hoo!), i answered those questions honestly, and it painted a picture of me as some sort of Max Power mentalist!

As IG states, it was probably (hopefully) a concession to the various 'road safety' groups who don't own cars......

Whilst on one of my marked car 'assessment' drives (through Hackney no less) i had to take a set of red ATS on the opposite carriageway, on blues and two's. A woman, who had clearly seen us approach, pushed her buggy with child straight out in front of us, causing me to stop and wait. No bother, i wasn't actually on my way to a call after all.

One of the other lads in the back of the car passed a comment and i calmly stated something like "she saw us allright, she just did it on purpose 'coz she doesn't like old bill". At the end of the drive i was marked down by the instructor for displaying signs of "red mist"!!!! Trust me, Police drivers are watched very closely!!

In line with what In Gear said, at the end of my course i was pleased as punch, couldn't wait to get back on Division to 'give it large' about passing my course. They then showed us a video with various fatal Police crashes on it. Christ! I wanted to chuck in my ticket there and then!!

P11 at the bottom says 'Drivers who tend to disagree with these statements turn out to have approximately five times the accident risk of those who agree'

Are you saying that the claim is simply false? There must be some evidence somewhere, either way. Can you cite evidence showing the claim to be false, if that's what you're saying?

If the claim is false, then there is nothing to learn from p.11.

If the claim is true, what should we learn from it?

_________________
I pay tax on all my cars

5,4,3,5,3,5,3. Stupid test

_________________
'Detritus, get yer stoney arse over ere'

The claim is entirely false, but worse than that, I presume it to be wilfully false. It undermines the quality of information in Roadcraft and misinforms the public.

Evidence? That's not so easy, but have a look at the responses in this thread, and note the commitments to safety that the respondents have made. For my part, I've taken about 20 different advanced driving courses and spent 15 years sifting the recommended attitudes and techniques to find the best and most effective.

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

How do ou know it's false?

It's a statistical matter. Either one or more studies were done, or not, or the results have been misinterpreted.

In short, you are saying that they are lying. That's pretty serious. The responses are irrelevant; this is a matter of fact.

Freedom of Information has been mentioned elsewhere on this site; can the raw data be obtained? Has anyone done so? Can it be referenced on the web?

_________________
I pay tax on all my cars

Roy, I hesitate to say this, but I REALLY don't think this is worth the trouble. Roadcraft page 11 is clearly piffle - it's so obvious to me that it's piffle that I feel no need to verify the fact. If a study was done that purports to justify the page, then that study is obviously piffle too.

On the other hand, if you would like to go to the trouble of gathering evidence to prove me wrong, I'd be delighted to consider it.

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

This post just oozes arrogance Paul, I cannot believe you actually wrote it

Its does seem strange to me, that just one page out of an otherwise sound publication can be deemed so poor as to be worthy of such withering contempt. And funny old thing, it just so happens to be the bit about drivers' attitudes towards speed. Well strike me down with a feather

Actually, I tend to agree. But what you or I think is unimportant; many things in this world are counter-intuitive and true. We need to see the backup data; if you then reject that out of hand then that's your privilege. Certainly not, no more than you will gather evidence to the contrary. If the background to roadcraft can be produced - if! - then that would be interesting.

_________________
I pay tax on all my cars