My what a change of emphasis that was!
I can only assume that your original concern has been addressed, especially as you’ve been given some links.
I gave up waiting to hear if even a single person was willing to provide me with practical ways to reduce the accident rate. But I am not surprised by this, we don't actually have a road safety problem in the first placeI can’t speak for Paul’s work, but this is how I view it:
fixitsan wrote:
1
Our roads are not now any more unsafe in terms of league tables of the safest nations compared to the most unsafe nations. By your own volition we must therefore still have a good safety culture if we have a good safety record.
No they’re not. Your claim of this has been disproved many a time, without counter argument I might add.
My claim that the accident rate in the UK is one of the lowest in Europe is based on official figures and is backed up in statements by Safespeed. We have about the lowest number of accidents per billion miles of almost any other country. If you have proof which shows otherwise please post itfixitsan wrote:
2
What is the form of this risk ? Which drivers are being forced into bad attitudes because they are less likley to be able to exceed an agreed speed limit ?
Driver’s judgement skill, and desire for, are being eroded because of the forced application of unnecessarily low limits.
As you admit, that is just your own interpretation. Where the speed is lower but the traffic density is high isn't the attention required to negotiate a road increased above one where the limit is high but density is low ? Or do you think that a baseline of ability exists and if you have to operate below that limit then you feel you are not driving well enough ?fixitsan wrote:
3
One function of traffic officers is speed limit enforcement. Speed cameras are far superior in that role than traffic police officers. Is this bad ?
Absolutely it is bad!
Cameras only detect those who exceed the posted limit – assuming the offender is an otherwise law-abiding citizen. Real criminals can go about their anti-social business with impunity because they will take steps to ensure they evade the penalty.
Traffic officers can detect those going to fast for the conditions, as well as a multitude of other sins like drink driving, any form of aggressive driving, ignoring any other traffic laws – regardless of whether the driver is ‘untouchable’ or not.
Is this based on an assumption that 'real criminals' will not slow down when they see a police car ?fixitsan wrote:
4
This is true. but your statement is neutral . Traffic cameras do a better job of speed management than traffic officers. Traffic officers are not responsible for road user quality management, normally.
Incorrect. Covered in 3. Nice weasel word added on the end there!
Where road user quality management is meant to mean the driving skill and testing thereof of drivers, the police play no part in this in the UK. We are not tested by police examiners. This is how I interpret 'road user quality management'. The only function the police can perform to produce apparent improvement is to punish. I thought you were all about education and didnt consider the fact that you may have thought that law enforcement was a possible method of eductaion. Is that your true position ?
I added the word 'normally', because normally police do not get invovled in any way in improving road user quality management, they certainly aren't involved on a day to day basis at driver testing stations or in the instruction of the majority of people. If you disagree , please explain what methods the police use to improve driver quality.
I'm surprised to think that the police ought to be involved in improving driver quality. Their job is mainly to report people who break laws and bring them to justice, they don't normally get involved in the teaching of the laws, but then again why should they ? They have enough to do already and don't need to be lumbered with the role of teachers too. What would happen if that became an official rule and then soem scrote decided that he would ignore his police education ? It would be worse for the police if they became educators too
fixitsan wrote:
5
About 75% of all accidents are cause by human error. I agree that engineers can reduce the probability of poor road design and signage causing some instances of driver error accidents, but there is nowhere near enough evidence to move towards anything resembling proof, not that I know of.
Conspicuity of hazards, removal of hazards, street furniture for pedestrians?
The speed camera closest to me (Anglesea Road, I can’t be accused of cherry picking) went up without any other engineering works. There is a railing in the central reservation between the dual carriageway, the reservation is less than 1 metre wide. There is a car park one side facilitating a swimming pool on the other. The railing is just low enough to get over, but high enough to cause great difficulty – especially to children. The incidents of children I have seen negotiating that railing (seen with my own eyes) will scare the daylights out of anyone. There is a pedestrian crossing about 80 meters away. So how about making the railing higher? (or lower?)
You don't have any comment to make on the relevance of enforcing speed limits on a road which is proving difficult to negotiate for children ? I acknowledge you are making a point to enforce your view, but why ignore the obvious too ?The second nearest camera (Mile End road) doesn’t fair much better. There have been multiple pedestrian fatalities, not surprising given the 7 lanes that have to be crossed, even though there is a pedestrian crossing facility only meters away.
I have no details about those incidents and must only guess about them, through lack of any other information.
A seven lane road is difficult to negotiate. you would think there would be a pedestrian criossing nearby ? I have had to assuem that people are not using the crossing which is installed. Is that the case ?fixitsan wrote:
6. Risk Compensation 1
The author's suggestion is that drivers deliberately and willfully drive closer or in a more dangerous manner in order to improve their safety. This does not seem to be a logical approach and the assumption seems to be that the majority of drivers are mentally defective. This might concur with the 75% who cause accidents.
I admit to not understanding that myself.
It just seems like a collection of words that had to be wedged in somewherefixitsan wrote:
7. Risk Compensation 2
This statement appears to be nothing more than guesswork
Nope. The M1 roadworks is a great example. Mile after mile after mile, at what used to be 40mph, of no arousal; this is fatal during darkness. DfT data for Sleep Related Crashes points to such lack of arousal to be a contributing factor for 17% of all crashes (
link). Forcing people to go slower, for longer, especially at below reasonable driving speeds, won’t help will it?
No it actually is guesswork.
Drivers[color=red] may pay ‘just enough’ attention to preserve subjective risk levels at any speed. If speeds are lower,
then attention is lower. This is very dangerous if it is punctuated by periods of complete inattention.The use of the word 'may' suggests nothing more certain than a remote possibility. The quoting of official figures at this point seems erroneous. Are you not quoting official figures only when they agree with your point of view ?[/color]
fixitsan wrote:
8. Risk compensation 3
Guesswork
It is a logical argument. Would you use additional care if crossing an NSL dual carriageway?
Would pedestrians ever walk out into that kind of road without looking? Do many bother looking when in a city?
Unfortunately one high profile case yesterday showed a young lad died yesterday from crossing a NSL road. Simply tragic. Despite being educated never to do that. Despite the obvious risks. He must have crossed the path of many slower moving vehicles in his lifetime too. fixitsan wrote:
Stimulation effect
Therefore periods of attention caused by the presence of cameras creates much needed interuptioins which break up the spells of susceptibility to tiredness and increase attention for a while
TRL595 would disagree with you.
Where are we now then ? Speed cameras causing stimulation effects does not improve safety, and a lack of stimulation does not improve safety but worsens it. We seem to be moving towards a 'not driving' attitude instead. fixitsan wrote:
10. Longer exposure to accident risk due to longer journey times.
Where the argument is that journey times are longer the assumption must be that it is a result of speeds being lower. However there appears to be a lack of proof that slower speeds carry either equal or greater risks. Tis would be required in order for the overall risk condition to be increased.
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/arousal.html