Safe Speed Forums

That's probably the biggest question of all for road safety. It's the subject of a goodly percentage of the discussions hereabouts.



Absolutely not.

But if ten million drivers get the same result it does. That's because when you have a big enough sample, every case of 'luck' is present within it.

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

How is this any different to you waving to someone you know as you drive down the street?

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

Of course if the camera wasn't there then there would be nothing for him to wave at, nothing to distract him and therefore nothing to cause him to drive carelessly. Ergo, speed cameras cause careless driving.

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

Ok, let me rephrase that, how does an observer tell whether someone is driving safely or has transgressed into carelessness? Whose yardstick do we use?



Does it? How would we assess/judge/measure (insert whatever word we deem appropriate in here) the driving of the tens of thousands of individuals who routinely drive too close to the vehicle ahead of them as evidenced by observing motorway driving at virtually any spot in the UK?

I'd want to use the observer's skill and judgement. I'd want the observer to be skilled and experienced. That's what trafpol do best.

If you're looking for an objective or technical measure, I don't think there is one - except after a crash.



If you observed enough tailgaters you would also observe the right number of associated crashes. That'll be part of the reason that (from memory) over 30% of motorway crashes are shunts. The other part of the reason is of course attention failure in all its forms.

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

This is such an interesting question, it's worthy of a separate 'Brainstorming' post.



Well, that can't be true. We objectively risk assess ourselves all the time. The BIG difference between deciding what is a 'Safe' or 'Unsafe' action, is the ability or will of the driver to look ahead and anticipate all likely consequences - and avoid the nasty ones.

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished

So there will always be an element of subjectivity and some people will never be content that the correct level of common sense is being applied. Particularly those who get caught and sanctioned because someone else's common sense-ometer is being used and not their own.



Which is the crux of the problem. If someone isn't crashing at a fixed moment in time when they are observed by a trafpol, what does the officer use as a measure of their 'carefulness'. Whatever it is, I'll wager it would still leave many unsatisfied.



Asessing risk whilst driving is one of the more subjective things we do; as soon as human has to make a decision based on an assessment he/she undertakes it ceases to be objective. If it were objective ones course of action would be determined against a set of measurable and observable critereon.

I reckon most of the time we're assessing risk subjectively.

But I may have mislead you somewhat by using 'objective meaasure' to imply something that could be written down and repeated. That's what I intended to convey - something that could be written down and repeated.

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

I don't see that as much of a problem really. Of course there will be marginal cases. Of course there will be folk who disagree, but that's a certainty whatever criteria we employ.

But the higher the quality of the decisions, the fewer will disagree - and that's the sort of target we need to shoot at.

And with higher the quality of the judgements, the closer we'll land finite resources to the real target.

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

And that leads to the obvious conclusion that if the camera wasnt there he would have been driving safely as the attention diverted to the camera would have been focussed on the task in hand?



I take exception to that! Im not desperate at all!

Its hardly my fault if your points are lacking in consideration, and poorly executed.



Waving at a camera, scratching my nose, adjusting the mirror and looking in it, whatever, they all divert attention but youd not get prosecuted for it.
No, this is one of those instances where the powers that be wish to set an example by showing us all how "hard" they are by persuing an unidentified biker and bringing him to their "justice".... pity they dont plough the same levels of diligence into catching serious offenders huh?




Hail! Thrice i have missed your point....which was what? as i appear to be missing it again.




Now that hurt! Rather a fool than a malicious twit anyday of the week.



I did read what you wrote, but the minute you decided to gleefully proclaim that " your comrade in arms has been caught!" along with all your smileys, i just couldnt be arsed to give what you were saying any further serious consideration.




No not at all. Stop distracting them with idiot speed controls and cameras and things will improve.




Ahh but i said it first.



Perhaps, perhaps not. If i might make a suggestion though, make a more sensible approach to people and youll get more out of them.



Oh come now! Please at least try to hold your breath. Shall we say 20 minutes?



Surely you didnt expect to just throw an argument into the ring and not expect it to be scrutinized did you? Id have thought youd have at least attempted to demonstrate the nature of the "carelessness" you proposed he was committing?




I see, so miscarriages of justice never happen eh?




Just cos i inadvertently V sign every scamera i travel past doesnt mean im not concentrating, after all, ive never even had a crash at a scamera site......although confidence is high.




Oh God! Its son of Brunstrom! Do yourself a favour and partake liberally in the drugs you want to see legalised cos to be honest, you just dont seem to have a handle on this subject at all.
Lets hope the pilot of your holiday jet isnt lighting a reefer or snorting a line up on the flight deck huh?




Well you would wouldnt you?......

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Even if we could, would that be of any use?

Looking outside the road environment: If I see a mother carry a pan over boiling water over the head of her child on the floor, I don’t need a measurement to know it’s unsafe. She could repeat the action a thousand times without injuring the infant, but it remains unsafe.

I could give a measurement of how far away from the child she should be, so a dropped pan would not affect the child, but she would never measure that distance.

Actually, I’m talking myself around to it being a subjective decision unless she removes the child completely from the equation.

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished

No use at all. Which was my point.

There are no measures of risk from human behaviour that can be written, measured or precisely quantified.

Risk from -say- high voltage cables is very different. You can predict how far the energy will jump depending on the voltage and say something like 'you will aways be safe if you never come within 3 feet'.

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

What if i have a 2 foot long stick? Will i be safe then? Just a further example of the futility of attempting to cater for all eventualities and declare total safety....theres simply no such thing in the real world, theres always that "human" element not to mention the multitudes of other elements out there.
Eventually, the penny will drop with these people, it has to, no one could be that stupid and live a long life.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

wiki: a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding

"If you don’t want to be viewed as a troll then refrain from making posts of such a style."

Okay, I see your point, but I'm only human and it seemed it me that no-one had actually condemned this person for careless driving. So I was doing so. Perhaps you and others would now like to actually condemn this person for careless driving.


"That doesn’t make logical sense, you may as well have said: “if you want people to agree that x = y then you are going to have to accept that x != y”"

Well whatever, but do you condemn this person or not?

"I strongly suspect that many here are greatly more educated and experienced in this field than the majority of that jury, hence you can’t be surprised if ‘we’ do have a differing opinion."

Okay, what would you then consider careless driving?


"How do you know he was looking at the speed camera whilst waving? How do you know he wasn’t concentrating on the road? Look at the photo for a clue........"

Firstly, that's only one photo; I saw a photo on another site on which he did appear to be looking at the camera.........

"Let’s put it like this: Would you say that someone looking at a road sign whilst changing gear is not giving serious attention to the road in front by enough to warrant a charge of careless driving?"

Changing gear is different from holding your hand up in the air. Let's face it, neither of us were at the trial, so this is only speculation.

jr135, do you ride a motorcycle?

"And that leads to the obvious conclusion that if the camera wasnt there he would have been driving safely as the attention diverted to the camera would have been focussed on the task in hand?"

Oh, okay then, let's just not enforce the law because some people don't like it...



"I take exception to that! Im not desperate at all!

Its hardly my fault if your points are lacking in consideration, and poorly executed."

My points weren't lacking in consideration or poorly executed. All you had to do was engage your brain.



"Waving at a camera, scratching my nose, adjusting the mirror and looking in it, whatever, they all divert attention but youd not get prosecuted for it."

Er, if you're doing a combination of those things along with driving at high speeds, then you will get prosecuted for it, as at least this case shows!

"No, this is one of those instances where the powers that be wish to set an example by showing us all how "hard" they are by persuing an unidentified biker and bringing him to their "justice".... pity they dont plough the same levels of diligence into catching serious offenders huh?"

Well actually, the £600 costs would suggest that they didn't have to put THAT much effort into catching him. Anyway, he was convicted of nine counts of careless driving - how many times do you think it should be before the police make an effort the catch the person?



"Hail! Thrice i have missed your point....which was what? as i appear to be missing it again."

I wouldn't be too happy about it, as it just makes you look rather unintelligent. The point was that I was talking about his careless driving, not specifically his speeding.



"Now that hurt! Rather a fool than a malicious twit anyday of the week."

And in what way am I malicious? It's you who is defending someone convicted of careless driving.



"I did read what you wrote, but the minute you decided to gleefully proclaim that " your comrade in arms has been caught!" along with all your smileys, i just couldnt be arsed to give what you were saying any further serious consideration."

Along with ALL my smileys? You mean the one? And why shouldn't I be gleeful about it when no-one including you can bring yourselves to actually condemn this person? Perhaps by being gleeful I might actually get through to some of you that you need to be a bit more consistent if you want to be taken seriously. As in, if you think that it doesn't matter what speed you're driving at as long as it's a "safe" one, then you will actually condemn someone who is not driving safely.




"No not at all. Stop distracting them with idiot speed controls and cameras and things will improve."

I drive and I'm not distracted by "idiot" speed controls or cameras. Perhaps you simply shouldn't be driving. After all, you hardly need to be that good a driver to glance down at your speedometre every now and again.




"Ahh but i said it first. "

Er, it doesn't make any difference.



"Perhaps, perhaps not. "

Well if you don't then you will just make yourself look like a desperate fool again. Sorry, but it's true.

"If i might make a suggestion though, make a more sensible approach to people and youll get more out of them."

I do make a sensible approach to people. Do I take it that when you say "sensible", you actually mean that I should agree with everything you say? Because you do seem to get very upset when someone comes on this board with a different opinion from you.



"Surely you didnt expect to just throw an argument into the ring and not expect it to be scrutinized did you? Id have thought youd have at least attempted to demonstrate the nature of the "carelessness" you proposed he was committing?"

Er, you didn't respond to the actual point here. Try again.



"I see, so miscarriages of justice never happen eh?"

No, but there's no actual reason to suspect that one has occured here.



"Oh God! Its son of Brunstrom! Do yourself a favour and partake liberally in the drugs you want to see legalised cos to be honest, you just dont seem to have a handle on this subject at all."

Oh dear. Again, just because I have a different opinion from you, you arrogantly think that it must be wrong. And by the way, I thought you were against people being authoritarian? You seem to be getting yourself in a bit of a muddle here.

"Lets hope the pilot of your holiday jet isnt lighting a reefer or snorting a line up on the flight deck huh? "

Er, yes, let's hope.



"Well you would wouldnt you?......"

Er, why's that?......

Fallacy - straw man argument (look it up)



Driving is measured against the standard of driving expected from a reasonable, prudent, competent driver. For one to be found guilty, the prosecution convince* the court that the driving fell below that standard.

* it doesn’t mean the driving was actually ‘careless'


Do you want really to follow that line of reasoning through? Are you seriously suggesting that taking your eyes off the road to read something like a road sign could be considered by many as ‘careless driving’?
I have seen other photos too, I haven’t seen one that leads me to conclude he wasn’t looking at the camera when triggered.

And let’s not forget:
Which doesn’t really tie in with your argument.


Is it? The hand wasn’t on the wheel/handle bar – so what exactly is the difference?

If you really want to argue the motion of the limbs, what about use of hands free devices (phone/gps) or the sunroof, you have to lift your hand for that! Is doing that considered ‘careless driving’?



QED

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

"Fallacy - straw man argument (look it up)"

I know what a straw man argument is. But if you don't like what I said then let me say something different. What if this motorist didn't like the police either, and every time he saw a police officer he looked and waved at them. Should we get rid of the police as well?


"Driving is measured against the standard of driving expected from a reasonable, prudent, competent driver. For one to be found guilty, the prosecution convince* the court that the driving fell below that standard.

* it doesn’t mean the driving was actually ‘careless'"

Er, I'm not quite sure of the point you're making here. He was convicted on nine counts of careless driving. Or in other words that his standard of driving fell below what you say.


"Do you want really to follow that line of reasoning through? Are you seriously suggesting that taking your eyes off the road to read something like a road sign could be considered by many as ‘careless driving’?
I have seen other photos too, I haven’t seen one that leads me to conclude he wasn’t looking at the camera when triggered."

Well the jury was convinced! Why do you think that you know better than people that were actually at the trial? As for the argument, from what I know from that short article, it seems like it was a combination of things: looking at the camera, holding your hand in the air, and driving too fast. A combination of things which meant that he wasn't giving serious attention to the road.

And let’s not forget:
Which doesn’t really tie in with your argument.

Well this guy was!


"Is it? The hand wasn’t on the wheel/handle bar – so what exactly is the difference?

If you really want to argue the motion of the limbs, what about use of hands free devices (phone/gps) or the sunroof, you have to lift your hand for that! Is doing that considered ‘careless driving’?"

Again, why do you think that you know better than the jury? Also, as I say earlier in this post, it seems like it was a combination of things, not just the motion of a limb.


"QED"

Er, I really don't know what point you're trying to make. He was convicted for careless driving, so why not condemn him for careless driving? If someone was convicted of murder, would you really not condemn them for it? I don't know, perhaps you would say that, based on a short article and a photo, that the person wasn't guilty?

Is he going to appeal against the charges other than exceeding the speed limit?

Quote city ……


Are you having a laugh? You’ve done it again!


Nope. The prosecution managed to convince the members of that particular jury that the driving fell below the expected standard, nothing more. **


Because this is Safespeed!
Seriously though, many here have a wealth of knowledge, experience and wisdom significantly above the typical cross-section of the population – this is a ‘single issue’ [safe transport] website after all!


All at the same time? I say again, I’ve seen no photo of the biker appearing to look at the camera with his arm raised. Even if he was, I ask again: is exceeding the speed limit, looking at a road sign and changing gear considered as ‘careless driving’? If not then what is the difference?


I hope you never grace any jury!
People usually make the mistake of judging others by their own standards; unusually you have done the exact opposite!


It means that you cannot possibly justify your opinion of condemnation of the biker (over the trust you place in the judgement of others) – as demonstrated by your lack of ‘arms waving/eyes wandering’ argument.



** These things are subjective, open to interpretation, subject to politics and open for reversal. Say we capitulate so accepting that the guy was careless, then he appealed and was acquitted, must we then all change our minds accordingly? Please!


There’s usually no subjectivity when assessing the deadness of a corpse
Go and Google ‘murder acquittal’. I will never place my complete faith in trials by jury.


The clue is in the question.
We are discussing whether the biker should have been convicted based on what was reported from the articles available. Of course there is a possibility that something more was considered at trial which wasn’t reported in the articles, hence we also cannot discount the possibility that he really could have been driving carelessly; given the current climate we can’t automatically accept this is the case.

Which brings us back to square 1:


which is not true, nor can ‘we’ condemn him.