Safe Speed Forums

That's a very telling statement. Feel a bit more vunerable on the motor bike than you do in the car do you?

So would you want people looking at their speedos as they're entering a junction or would you rather people looked at what was going on around them?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

If people can't monitor their speed with quick glances at their speedo as well as know what's going on around them they frankly shouldn't be driving; they'd fail their test if they took it again for a start.

Excusing crap driving is not the best way to improve road safety IMO.

You make it sound like I just shot myself in the foot?

Yes, the hairs on my neck stand up more than when I'm in the car.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

The later, naturally. That's why I'm against cameras in general. I'm just trying to figure out what was going through Mr Pro-camera mans heads' when they put them where they do.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Is numerical speed relevant at that point then do you think? Would you say that not only should people be able to look at their speedos and negotiate a juntion simultaneously, but that they should be doing so?

How long do you think it takes to look at and register the reading on a guage? How long do you think the vital period for recognising an emergent situation, such that it can be mitigated, is? Do you really think that speedo checks are the best use of a driver's finite capacity at that point?

Who's excusing crap driving? IMVHO, that's exactly what the govt is doing. They're avoiding trying to improve driving standards by keep banging on about it's only speed that matters - stick to the speed limit and you will be safe!

I presume you are a driver and know that there is far more to good, safe driving than just sticking to a speed limit?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Back to the : -

Car drivers driving at a speed they see as suitable for the conditions

vs

Car drivers driving just above the legal limit

I've just observed drivers speeding up at the exit of a 20 zone, despite the road not changing in configuration at all, other than a 30 sign.

However, the road had already widened before the 30 signs and did not change through them.

Proof positive IMO that they were driving at speed limit + a bit in the 20 and in the 30, not at a speed they thought was "safe", otherwise why would they put their foot down on the exit of the zone and not before it?

Anecdotal proof, isn't that an oxymoron?

How did you measure that they were not accelerating to 30mph at the end of the 20 zone?

Observation, many sped up as they left the zone. they certainly weren't doing 30 in it.

The only education I know for sure would help is not something anyone would dare enforce, which is to show in vivid detail the result of bad driving.

Take new or young drivers to A&E to see and hear the victims' stories while they lie in a bed being kept alive with drips and 24 hour care. (ohhh you can't do that Tony) Yes, I know - unfortunately.

I've said it before but how many of us have been much more cautious after seeing an accident or the aftermath of one. Makes you think doesn't it? There is absolutely no tonic like it for making you think twice before doing anything stupid.

I don't know what percentage of drivers get involved in accidents because of stupidity or because they knowingly push the limit for a thrill but one thing I know for sure, they would change their habits if they spent some time seeing the results of bad driving.

The mature of us have more respect for life so by enlarge they get by okay. That's why car insurance is less.

Actually, I'd like to know what insurance companies attribute most accidents to? I doubt speed comes into it nearly a much as some people would like to think it does. The victims I see say things like, (most common first) : -

He didn't see me!!!
Bad judgement
The bastard! (I've heard much worse which I won't repeat here)

I could go on but I can tell you in nine years of doing what I do, I have never heard speed mentioned as the actual cause!

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

If that is the case, you are breaking the law and your car should not be on the road until it is fixed. If speed is as important an issue to you as you seem to be claiming, I suggest you deal with this as a matter of urgency!



So what? I do about 30,000 miles a year and have never been flashed either - I'm just not so arrogant as to assume that those unfortunate enough to have been unjustly prosecuted are lying!

"proof" eh?



So let me get this right. Nothing has changed except the limit sign? Well that's a pretty good indication that either the 20 limit is inappropriate or the 30 limit is inappropriate then! Could it possibly be that maybe (just maybe) the 20 limit was decided arbitrarily rather than with due regard for safety?



OK now I'm confused. Nothing changed except the limit sign...
...and the road widened?



Yes, absolutely, that's the only possible explanation!

...unless you consider that maybe they were perefectly reasonable people who may well have felt that the entire stretch was safe to negotiate at 40 for all I (and you) know!

Maybe they (as I probably would in the same circumstances), suffered the new limit and drove as close to a safe and appropriate speed as possible without endangering their licenses too much? When you think about it, their behaviour might not be that illogical at all. A great many 20MPH limits are fairly new and would be good places for a covert speed trap to make rich pickings. In fact, if I saw a road widening out towards the end of (but still within) a 20 limit and all my other observations suggested that conditions were appropriate for a higher speed, I'd DEFINITELY suspect a speed trap!

Yes, they could have accelerated earlier, but for some reason waited until they got near the 30 sign.

The reason is that they were moderating their speed according to the signed speed limit, which is what people here are suggesting drivers do not do.



That is exactly what I'm suggesting many people do. and when Idid people told me I was talking rubbish.

I suggest that people who go faster than the limit are travelling at such a speed where they feel they can get back to the limited speed sharpish if they felt they were being observed, that's limit + 5 or 10 mph.

More proof is that most drivers will apply brake if they see a the police, i.e. they were driving slightly faster than the limit, and moderate their speed back to the limit when the see the police.

So what's your point? That people drive as far above the limit as they think they can get away with?

Well, duh: I think that's what you call human nature and our in-built risk management abilities. If speed limits are set so low that the great mass of drivers think they are safe to exceed, but then fairly rigorously enforced, drivers are bound to exhibit the behaviour you describe. I know I do.

Try analogising with something else, let's say shoplifting. Most people believe shoplifting to be immoral, and thus they respect the law, and don't just steal 5% of their weekly shop. Fear of punishment is possibly a factor, but moral considerations probably explain why most people never steal.

Murder. People think it's immoral, so they generally don't do it. They don't just kill people when noone's looking. Fear of punishment plays a role but most people just know it's wrong so don't even consider it.

Tax Quite a lot of people think it's good idea in principle but the level's immoral, so if they can get away with paying less than they have to (through quite legit means) I suspect most people would do it. Fear of punishment plays a major role. If tax evasion carried no legal or financial penalty, we'd all be at it!

Most people will only obey what they consider an unjust law as far as they have to in order to avoid punishment.

Oh and....



I'm surprised you didn't divorce her.

You don't need to "duh" me, you agree with me.

You need to be going "duh" to these posters who say this is not the case (and what follows is just a sample of them): -









And this was Odin trying to convince me that people travelling at 45-50 mph in a 40 limit were actually travelling at 40mph according to their speedos (he also tried to convince me my satnav was wrong in the same post): -

Umm, you earlier said...



...which suggests you believe people see the limit, add on a fixed amount, and drive to that regardless of what the actual limit or conditions are.

This is what we've all been pulling you up on. Yes, people will exceed the limit by the lesser of what they think they can get away with OR what they feel comfortable with, but that amount WILL vary on an almost continual basis depending on the traffic, weather, nature of the road ahead, likelihood of there being a talivan/trafpol lurking just around the next corner/over the brow of the next hill etc. etc.

_________________
Chris

I believe many people drive as fast as they feel they can using the limit + a little bit formula.

I'm going to add a little my idea of what this speed is: -

Its the speed at which they think they can get back to a speed they think they won't be pulled up for.

I.e. in a 30 limit people who drive at 36mph are driving at 30 + 3 mph which they see as not being an issue at all if they're seen, + 3 mph, which is the margin they feel they can drive at and get back to 33mph if they feel they are being observed.

So do you believe this is desirable (or even preventable) behaviour or not?

And if not, what do you believe is the answer?

And what do you believe is the impact on road safety (positive or negative)?

The original argument was between: -

a) 20mph limits in residential areas would mean people travel through them at a slower, less hurried pace

a) 20mph limits in residential areas would not reduce people's speed through them and they would continue to travel at the speed they would if it was a 30, 40 or 50 or NSL zone

My suggestion is that rather than try to hit 35mph (which many people seem to think is an OK speed to get to in a 30 zone) they'd aim for a max 25 because its a 20 zone.

They would moderate their maximum speed due to the maximum limit (although we know that people push the limit of this and the two are not often the same).

A 10mph reduction in maximum instantaneous speed in residential areas can only be a good thing, it would give people more time to react to adverse situations, and ensure any impact has, well less impact generally.