Safe Speed Forums

What's people's ideas on the general consensus on the ability of a driver to judge for themselves what the most appropriate speed is for a situation?

I am a cyclist, but I am also a driver - however I do browse cycling forums, and up till recently I thought that most cyclists were fairly open minded people, however there is this thread going on, which (especially towards the end) shows from a lot of people an absolute ignorance of the ability to be perceptive and observant of hazards, instead, the will to have everyone following gormlessly behind legislation like sheep.
the guy 'bonj' appears to make a lot of sensible points, but appears to be fighting a losing battle.

any comments? Should we all stick religiously to speed limits because of 'unknown hazards'?

Hello Flange and welcome.

I think most cyclists (actually almost all cyclists) are fairly open-minded people. Unfortunately Cycling Plus is spammed by a handful of bigots (with mind-boggling post counts!) who spend very little time talking about cycling, and a great deal of time ranting on about drivers. Sadly I suspect this puts a lot of people off C+.

In answer to your point, while I think speed limits are a good guideline of the overall hazard level of a stretch of road:
a. In recent years - for argument's sake the last fifteen - they have been reduced to artificially low levels, while enforcement has become far more draconian.
b. Id' rather concentrate on broad hazard anticipation than on my speedo.

The very essence of road safety in the real world is individuals individually managing risk. We adjust speed to manage risk. We adjust our speed to suit the hazrad environment.

By doing this we have reached the amazing position where, in spite of the obvious and extreme potential danger, only one person dies per 100 million miles driven.

It's not physics or vehicle speeds that gives us that impressive safety record, it's human behaviour - psychology.

But despite all that there's masses of room for improvement. If we are to improve then it is only logical to build on our strengths, and help us as individuals to manage risk better.

And of course that 100 million miles per fatality figure makes no adjustment for the deaths caused by extraordinary reckless behaviour or by rogue drivers. The risks caused by the rest of us are far smaller.

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

That's all well and good Paul, but we need to do something about what we have.

And we have children who should be encouraged to cycle to school, who want to cycle to school, but who are prevented because of the risk from dangerous drivers.

Telling everyone that people should be able to judge their own safe speed doesn't make any difference. They aren't.

Are they at risk from dangerous drivers?

It's impossible to control any vehicle safely, whether car, bike, boat, or skateboard, without judging what is a safe speed.

The dangerous drivers out there need to be dealt with, but limiting their judgment is not going to help. If there are drivers who are physically unable to judge a safe speed, they need to be removed from the road, not kept to a 'safe' 30 or 20 mph.

Last night I watched a driver who stuck religously to the speed limit very nearly mow a pedestrian down on a zebra crossing. She carried on at 30mph despite the fact that the man was already half way across the road. This is the second time I have seen a near miss on the same crossing. Last time another driver missed an old lady by less than 6 inches whilst doing 30mph.

The crossing is in the middle of Manningtree high street and 30 is never a safe speed at the times of day I travel through it. Speed limits are nothing more than a guide to the appropriate speed. The near misses I saw occured at legal speeds. The problem was either poor observation or lack of attention. You should always expect a pedestrian to be on a zebra crossing.

In the current environment, that's a whole lot of drivers.

If you're talking about once the SS proposed culture change has taken place, if, at all possible, what do we do in the mean time?

The 'safety' campaigners could start preaching COAST instead of Speed Kills for a start. Get people to think about what is really important for safety not just blind adhearance to a number on a stick. As has been said many times here, you can drive perfectly safely without a speedo. Choosing a safe speed for the conditions has nothing to do with speed limits.

Note for the original poster:

Jub Jub is one of those C+ spammers I mentioned.

Let's let him make his own mind up about me shall we?

I don't think I've said anything spamworthy in this thread have I?

It's a valuable discussion.

But the powers that be aren't really interested in doing this though, are they?

The authorities seem to take a blind eye to the root cause of most problems. They only seem keen on legislating for the symptoms, not the causes.

Just imagine for a moment that learner drivers were also taught COAST? I appreciate a lot of a driver's skill also comes with experience, but I'm damn sure that if COAST was taught as standard, there would be a marked improvement in driving standards.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Aren't they actually prevented from doing so by irrational fear, not helped one bit by the rabid dislike some pro-cycling (or indeed, pro-ANY non-private-motoring form of travel) individuals show towards motorists, which manifests itself as the flawed concept that road safety is the responsibility only of the motorist and other road users should be able to do whatever they like.

Teach them how to ride a bike safely from a purely technical point of view (i.e. how to ride in nice straight lines and flowing curves rather than wobbling all over the place, how to signal and perform over the shoulder checks without coming close to falling off etc), THEN teach them how to ride safely on the road (how to interact with other road users of all types, what those shiny red lights mean at junctions, that sort of thing), and maybe then they'd have all the encouragement they need.

_________________
Chris

No. That's an irrational idea promoted by the some pro-driving individuals who have a rabid dislike of some pro-cycling (or indeed, pro-ANY non-private-motoring form of travel) individuals who show rabid dislike towards motorists....and so on.

The reality, away from the unhelpful extremes, and a reality that we all see daily, is that plenty drivers do drive dangerously around schools when kids are coming and going. Enough for it to be a risk to safety. It's bad enough managing this when walking children to school. And this is what prevents more children cycling.

I love driving. I also cycle. I'm confident enough and aware enough of the dangers to manage to minimise my safety on all roads, regardless of levels of traffic.

I believe that children should not have to reach a standard where they can manage roads which have dangerous driving on. They should reach a standard where they can manage roads with a reasonable standard of driving. They should not have to compensate for dangerous driving.

In the ideal world.

But why should children not be able to cycle to school because of dangerous driving? And when we talk about dangerous driving around schools, excess speed is often the biggest factor.


I agree. But like I said, 'riding safely' is not just dependent on the cyclist's abilities. It's about managing within certain environments. And some environments shouldn't be there.

And then there's the factor that local authorities acknowledge dangerous driving around schools to the point where they won't actively encourage cycling because of the risks. This discussion has been going on on the dark side, on the link posted above. Amongst all the soapboxing (including the accusation that the LAs are just scared of compensation claims) there's been some decent discussion.

What is your point here Jub Jub?



Why not? Is this not what all road users should strive to?

Do you genuinely blame drivers for fewer kids cycling to school? You don't think paranoia about paedophiles, obese lazy children who would rather play PS2 than take exercise or play sport, overprotective parents, schools that can't prevent little yobs from stealing/vandalising the property of others etc. play absolutely no part, it's all because the roads outside the school are a mass of speeding drivers with cyclists in their sights?

I still see kids riding to school. I don't see, or hear of, carnage amongst them. Some interesting figures would be the %age of children who cycle to school who get run down per year, adjusted for journey distance.

What I do see, on a regular basis, is kids who are cycling to school behaving in utterly irresponsible ways around roads which are, by virtue of the time of day, going to be on the busy side. Riding on pavements, weaving across the roadway, turning without signalling or looking, wobbling along at walking pace chatting to their foot-borne mates, and plenty of other examples of irresponsible and unpredictable behavior.

Which do you think will make children safer to cycle to school, a speed camera outside the school, or cycling proficiency education?

Over to you.

Surely this is completely the wrong attitude for LA's to take?!

Again, let's not focus our resources on curing symptoms, but causes...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

That is possibly true but the problem is that 'excess' may only be 20mph if there are children around. People 'sticking to the limit' at 30mph and squeezing past children on bikes are dangerous but since the only enforcement we ever get is a speed camera (frequently nowhere near the school) they will never be stopped. Someone doing 35mph on the edge of town is far more likely to get a penalty even though their speed is perfectly safe for the conditions (albeit illegal).

I bet every one of Safespeed's members will agree that dangerous drivers should be stopped but you cannot measure a dangerous driver with a speed camera.

Robin,

be careful, you're in danger of portraying yourself as one of those rabid types.

This whole discussion on cycling to school started on the dark side. I don't expect you to read the whole 18 pages, which is mostly guff, but it came out of the fact that I have been told by my son's primary school that they won't fit cycle shelters. Because children don't cycle to school. And the local authority won't encourage it because of the road which the school is on. It is about 4-500 yards long and dead straight. It is part of a rat-run, which drivers use to cut out part of a main road. So it is driven very quickly by a lot of drivers in an attempt to make up a few places. There are enough cars bombing up the road at peak times, just to get stuck waiting to join the main road and then be stuck in 3 immediately following sets of lights, for the road to be dangerous, let alone cross.

Over to me? All road users should have consideration for others. Children should be able to cycle on a residential school road where drivers have consideration for their right to be there and for the fact that they are there. Where the driver's main focus isn't to join the line of traffic in front of him as quickly as possible.

You know it happens. Not all drivers, but enough to make roads dangerous. I'd like to hear your proposals to deal with it.

Because I have observed some utterly stupid behavior from children cycling to school? Gosh, how hate-filled am I?!?

Another instance I neglected to mention was when an older pupil on a bike jumped straight off the kerb and across the road right in front of me! He was lucky that I was alert and had already clocked him as a hazard, and as such was fully prepared for his stupidity, despite probably doing around 30mph. If I had got my hands on him then you might have been justfied in calling me rabid!

If cycling children are at such a risk as you purport then my proposals? I thought those were quite clear! Educate children at the earliest possible opportunity on both how to ride a bike and how to use the roads safely. Preferably without instilling them with the 'rabid' car-hating vitriol that seems to flow so freely on C+!

My proposals for improving the standards of drivers haven't changed in all the time we have been debating this: Scrap speed cameras and the "Speed Kills" nonsense, and likewise focus on education, coupled with enforcement of those who pose a danger to themselves and others.

Sounds identical to a few locations by me!

And the reason car drivers use these rat-runs? Because the LA, in their infinite wisdom, have so artificially congested the main roads with bus-stop build-outs, un-necessary traffic lights etc., that the situation now encourages car drivers to use residential streets.

Am I wrong?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus