Safe Speed Forums

You don't think there is a difference between wilfully driving at 35 to 40 mph in a 30 limit, and going +/- 1-2mph when aiming for 30?

32mph in a 30mph in Victoria, Australia will get you a ticket.

I can't remember whether it was you, or "hjeg2" or whoever who said - "if you can't control your vehicle, you shouldn't be on the road". Where do you draw the line?

What about 33mph? 34mph? 32.5mph? 32.0001mph? Where exactly is the borderline between aggressive and placid? From what you've said you must think there's a cut-off point somewhere. Do you honestly think, hand on heart, that 2 or 3mph either way, regardless of the conditions or anything else, determines whether someone is driving aggressively or not?

When you're walking along a 30mph road, can you tell whether someone's driving at 32mph, 33mph or 35mph, and whether they're doing it wilfully? Does their exact speed or their wilfulness really matter to you or any other pedestrian? If they accelerate or decelerate slightly or their wilfulness changes then does your attitude towards them suddenly change? Do you even realise? Does it matter at all whether it's raining, the road is narrow, the limit was 40mph until recently, the pavement is fenced off and/or far away from the road, or anything else except numbers numbers numbers (oh, and wilfulness)? Are any of those things, or any other things, more important to you than whether someone's doing 32mph or 33mph?

Is it based on percentages of the speed limit, i.e. is 72.0000mph the maximum non-aggressive speed on a motorway, or are "non-wilful speeders who aren't real speeders" allowed to go a bit higher there? Do you have a chart of "allowable excesses"? You see, it gets awfully complicated and silly once you start fudging things by making allowances for yourself while condemning others for going slightly higher. If you're going to say "speeding is bad", then really you've got to go the whole hog and say that any degree of speeding is bad, with or without wilfulness. Otherwise it gets ridiculous (although it's ridiculous anyway, but for different reasons). However, I can see why you and other pro-camera people avoid saying that: because there's no such thing as a driver who truly never speeds. Unfortunately, when you take an illogical position like supporting cameras, you start running into contradictions like this all over the place. If you have genuinely noble reasons for supporting cameras then maybe it's time to review that position. We won't think any less of you; quite the opposite in fact.

And besides, if you support cameras, then "wilfully" has nothing to do with anything. The cameras and their operators don't care. And there have been reports of people being done for 31mph or 32mph. If you got done for that, would you think it fair, and decide that you were an aggressive, evil speeder? Or would you still consider yourself to be morally superior to "proper speeders"? Would you be better or worse than the members on this site who have no points? How long are you going to carry on kidding yourself by creating a distinction in your mind between yourself and "proper speeders" which doesn't exist in the real world? When are you going to admit that cameras fail to differentiate between aggressive, dangerous drivers and others?

By the way, I certainly don't want to go off-topic, but just a quick question: do you post on any cycling forums? It's just that I asked you where you'd come from before and you must have missed it, and I'd hate for there to be any misunderstandings. (You see, we get trolls on here from certain cycling forums, who have irrational and obsessive anti-Safe Speed and/or anti-car agendas, but pretend to be random members of the public who just happen to be in favour of speed cameras. Since they have hidden agendas, such trolls are not open to reason and so there's no point in "debating" with them; they're just here to provoke us and waste our time. Assuming you're not one such person, I'm sure you'll be keen to let us know.)

There we go: 20 questions. Perhaps I'll get an answer to one or two.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

Certainly not. Especially when you said "Two fingers up to the law, "I'm not taking notioce of you!"; absolutely an agressive act."

You are either breaking the law or you aren't. It's black & white.

I suspect what you're talking about is driving within the 'spirit' of the law, with which I have no problem.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

It was me, in response to people who suggest that they can't monitor their actual speed and the environment around them at the same time.

That would depend on the surroundings. If I was driving in a built up area my focus would be on the surrounding environment and not on the Speedo worrying about the speed limit.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

We were talking about Choosing to drive above the limit, which is undeniably two fingers up to the law.



I cycle (do you cycle bombus?), I also drive a car, but certianly don't support many of the attitudes toward driving we see on this board, or attitudes toward cycling you see on cycling boards.

You'll often find me attacking people who cycle (edit: or drive) that think they own the road (above pedestrains) and make negative generalisations about the drivers of other types of vehicles when most are kind and considerate.

We all share the road, its a public space, I'm not somebody who picks a side and sticks with it no matter what.



I'm not in favour of speed cameras per se, I'd rather people drove at an appropriate speed, rather than an "I want to get there as fast as I can, I'll drive at what speed I like" speed.

In the meantime though if everybody chose to not break the limit tomorrow there wouldn't be any need for them, and crash rates would go down, and many crashes would be less serious.



I don't think my agenda is hidden. I think many people could slow down and take much more care when driving vehicles, or cycles for that matter.

It seems to me though that many here are keen to dismiss the emotional turmoil (and financial cost) caused by KSIs just so they can travel at what speed they feel like, in very heavy vehicles.

Its quite close to the pro/anti gun control argument in my book when the nukber of KSIs we're discussing so high.

Like I said, its very rare I find myself going above 30mph in a 30mph zone, and if I am (by 1 or 2 mph) I'm slowing down.

Big difference to somebody who chooses to travel at 35 - 40.

You might, tell that to the people chortling down my road who are patently just trying to get down it as fast as they can.

This is not everybody, but from observation a good 20 percent of drivers.

Same for me, but then in residential streets lined with parked cars I'm never doing more than 15 or so anyway.

Welcome aboard!


I believe (but not 100% certain) that exceeding the speed limit only accounts for 5% of KSI's?

So I'm not sure that you're correct in your assertion that crash rates would go down...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

I also think that the appropriate speed is a good 15 to 20% lower than most people drive at when they think they're driving at an appropriate speed.




Pro speeding spin, was it 40% of people that admit to intentionally speeding?

I reckon If you replayed 80% of crashes and slowed the speeds down by 10% the crash would either no have happened, or the results would've been less severe.



You see, when I see people claiming that lower speeds would not result in less death and injury I think that's an assertion too, there's more science to prove the opposite though, and none to prove your assertion.

Could it be that your definition of appropriate is offset from the rest of the populous?


I'm not pro-speeding. Either way, would that not indicate an under-representation of drivers exceeding the speed limit in such crashes? Or do these people only exceed needlessly low speed limits when safe to do so, so keeping their speeds appropriate?


I reckon If you replayed 99% of crashes and made drivers more attentive (or less distracted) the crash would not have happened. Of course this ignores those aggressive or competitive, for them an attitude shift is required. Current policy isn’t addressing that group - in fact it has gotten worse.


Only if speed is considered in isolation. When coupled with other real-word factors the science isn't anywhere near as clear cut.

Thanks for very carefully not answering a single one of my questions, weepej. That tells me all I need to know.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

If by populus you mean people who drive cars only, then I imagine so.

I'm going to sound right pompus here, but I reckon being a cyclist as well as a car driver helps make me a more considerate driver, in many ways.

For many to get a sense of what a real appropriate speed is I reckon a month on a pushbike would help, or if I was being a bit "Jeremy Clarkson", a rusty spike in the steering wheel instead of an airbag.

Interesting that you make this distinction. Are you of the opinion that this burden of courtesy (for want of a batter word) indeed only extends towards those more vulnerable than oneself? Shouldn't it be to all other road users?



...and if that appropriate speed is higher than the one on the lolly?

There is no analysis of which I am aware that shows either crash rate or severity would be reduced by increased speed limit compliance. In a recent analysis of crash causation factors (from raw data provided here) it was observed that the vast majority of accidents with "speed in excess of the limit" as a contributory factor also had at least one other factor that could be deemed as 'grossly irresponsible/inept' e.g. bad tyres/brakes, inattention, unlicenced driver, etc..

It seems to me that many in the outside world use the emotional turmoil (and financial cost) caused by KSIs as emotive rhetoric to promote 'Speed Kills' dogma, to the neglect of policies which will effect the real causes of accidents, and in promotion of lucrative policies that do nothing to reduce either KSIs or speeding!

How about being a car driver, motorcyclist, cyclist and pilot?

Cycling was my method of commuting (let alone leisure) for many years; now it’s leisure only (but I still would prefer to cycle to work). I didn’t notice such a problem even when I was pro-camera, I still don’t. However, I will agree that all road users experiencing what it is like from the other side (yes, that includes the opposite way around) will increase understanding of what is expected, and to be expected, from others. It would certainly help disperse the 'them and us' attitude prevalent on the road today. I'm all for having cycling as part of the curriculum, if not that then as part of the driving test (not the test itself, just a requirement to have done some cycling).

To bring you down a peg: you’re not anywhere near as funny as Clarkson

I've flown planes, not a pilot though. Been on a motor scooter once in my life, have no desire whatsoever to use a motorcycle for some strange reason.

Well, we all owe a duty to look out for each other, as well as ourselves, and I can't put my finger on it in any meaningful way, but somebody who is driving an 18 wheel HGV owes more of a duty of care than a pedestrian or a cyclist, or even a car driver, simply because the stakes are higher I suppose, and the extra training HGV drivers have to go through reflects this I suppose.

If we argued it from an imaginary viewpoint where people could run at up to 60 mph and we didn't need vehicles, but people we're being KSI's by people running at inappropriate speeds?