Safe Speed Forums

Actually that's wrong isn't it? Risk received is much greater than risk posed because most of the things we might crash into are inanimate.

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

Dear God! I got to about page 6 and lost the will to live, the debate became so bogged down in semantics and technicalities. Please forgive me if this point has already been addressed and dealt with.

Jr135, you originally posted with the intention of condemning the members here for their inaction in condemning the rider convicted of careless driving. You subsequently professed that you could not make any case for dangerous driving against him due to lack of possession of the facts of the case. I hope you understand that, in the absence of possession of such facts on anyone else's part, we cannot rush to condemn him ourselves.

Given the facts that are in our possession, and with some degree of expert opinion amongst the bikers here, myself included, removing one hand from the handlebars, regardless of speed, is not, in and of itself, inherently dangerous. The only evidence of the case that has been shared with us is that the rider removed one hand from the handlebars.

Therefore you cannot expect us to condemn the rider, and we can only suppose that the jury were in possession of some additional, undisclosed, damning evidence, otherwise they appear to have got it wrong. This is not an unheard of occurrence in jury trials.

Primary GOAL is to maintain a cocoon of (temporal) safety. To do this, one applies forces (via pedals and wheel). I see speed as (one of two primary) measures, neither a goal nor an output. However, the camera distorts things, turning it into a non-safety goal at the expense of safety goals. In "normal" motorists the camera distorts the risk-assessment process to make one cap at lolly speed past the camera. It perversely affected this bus driver/biker (as, to a much lesser extent, the VAS do with me, just a tiny blip you appreciate, to check the bulb is working and to establish if the speed threshold is about right ).

Modified to include your own later amendment.

Yes, I agree its a very good system. Its used in most developed countries across the world in one way or another. But, if you are a pedestrian, the risk received from moving traffic is much greater than risk posed - it all depends upon whose perspective you are looking at it from.



Well, its this paragraph here that I'm interested in...



My real world experiences tell me that if we simply permit drivers to travel at a speed that feels right (to them), there are times when they would be going murderously fast for the needs of themsleves and others. Many already drive at absurdly high speeds in driving rain and fog, like blindfolded people walking along feeling for the shoulder of the person in front. We don't have regular carnage because the system, particularly on the motorway, is very tolerant to such stupidity (e.g. the need to stop abruptly seldom arises) but that doesn't mean the behaviour is appropriate.
Ultimately, because the road network needs to consider those operating in and around it as well as those on it, 'feeling right to the driver' is not the only factor that is important in speed setting. At some point that 'feeling right' speed will inevitably be capped.

In a simple driving situation, the normal response of a driver to a hazard ahead is simply to slow down. Without slowing down the risk posed by the hazard increases dramatically as we get closer. If we slow down sufficiently the risk from the hazard is 'neutralised'.

This is why I'm saying that 'speed' is an output from the risk management cycle.

I'm calling it 'primary' because nine times out of ten it's speed that needs most adjustment to negotiate a hazard safely. The secondary hazard response is of course course. We might be able to steer away from a hazard.

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

I more or less agree with that. I agree that a small percentage won't have the skill, attitude or the common sense to 'keep it safe and sensible'. But the old 85th percentile thing recognises that (considerably more than) 85% of people are keeping it safe and sensible whenever they are observed.

You'll remember that I have never disagreed with the principle of speed limits - but we really only need them to deal with the misbehaviour of a small minority. We certainly don't need them with robotic enforcement 'telling us how fast to drive'.

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

Yup - and to either slow down, speed up or chink one way or the other to a side-bourne hazard, and to either slow down OR speed up OR chink away - or even go off road to a hazard from behind - or even to engage motion when none previously was present! All these are forces

Some European countries will fine if you cross on a red man or even fail to use a nearby crossing.

Unfortunately, people are stupid: they cross where they should not - where there is a blind bend or from between parked vehicles.

This is nothing new. They did get run down by horses and carriages in the past - and no doubt will be by bicycles once we get 32 million of them and more replacing the cars

There are really good THINK! adverts around: one with a parent teaching a child all the normal things - reading simple words; counting the steps and so on - and then the child does what we all know our children do:

sees something "interesting" across the road and breaks free from his mother's hand and bolts. The mother's expression leaves the viewer in no doubt as to what happened next

The end caption reminds all parents not to forget the most serious and important thing to teach our children: to cross a road safely.

The other one is aimed at the adult pedestrian - who is pre-occupied in a mobile phone conversation and just steps out without looking.

Great adverts depicting real life - but each time I've seen then have been "very late/small hours" on BBC1. My wife says she has not seen them in peak viewing times.

Excellent advert which should be given a much wider and more frequent screening as they clearly show up the risk to pedestrian and drivers, bikers and cyclists to be aware of this potential risk as well.





We do pull folk for driving along at stupid speeds in bad weather conditions so long as it can be done without compromising safety even more.

I would love a digital doo-dah on the gantries which would flash up the registration of car with the words " Oy YOU! Twazak in car XX05XXX. Slow down!

But serious driver error. If it's foggy or driving rain - golden rule still applies of being able to stop safely on your onw side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear - which would not be far and thus the speed has to be lower.

These as we know are the common sense basics. We need to do more to hammer home the message of appropraite speed for conditions. I still think a periodic assessment and udpating of skills should be considered on that basis.



We still get too many accidents and collisions because of poor to non-existent COAST principles


We do seem to get people slowing down when they think the car's ahead's our "unmarked" here

He's already noted what's been going on and will lark around - playing cat and mouse with you!




To me 30 mph and below "feels right" in town. I don't actually find this "slow" either.

Some roads look open roads and urban duals are probably the most misleading and prone to be "misjudged as to what feels right speed wise" in some respects. We seem to pull more up for breaking our threshold on urban duals

However, these duals do run though obviously built up areas and perhaps again we are back to "observation and hazard anticipation" as taken into account the whole area's setting provide significant clues as to what speed should be safe, FEEL safe and right within that traffic flow.

These are just observations based on what we do see going on - and we still come back full circle as to how the hell do we correct or minimise basic daftness.

Speed cams are not really the answer as they are failing to cut down the speeds nor addressing the levels of sheer numptiness out there

Education? It has to be absolutely constant - else complacency sets in (and this was accepted by the CW experienced cream of the cycling crop who tested out Bikeability for the magazine )

Road engineering? We need to take a serious look at the way some roads are laid out. Mad Doc's sister tells me of an urban residential which is sometimes used as a "rat run" between two arterials. I think she has taken a photo and perhaps we should post it up for comment. This road has seriously sharp bends. Jazz's series of photos show entrances to various side streets and houses just after these bends. Kids play. One was killed recently by a van using this "short cut" and another injured by a resident returning home - obviously familiar with this road.

Why the road has this bend? To accommodate the supermarket carpark Before the supermarket - this road was straight and SAFE apparently

We also need to look at the purpose of all roads. Urban and clearly serving an urban environment - unless it has a 40 plus repeater mph lolly - it wil be 30 mph

So we come back to training and COAST's systematic assessment

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.