Safe Speed Forums

Hi All,

A large part of the "speed" debate revolves around the terms used. When we talk about "speed" or "speeding" what do we mean?

When we talk about "excessive speed", "safe speed", "appropriate speed" or "inapprorpriate speed" what do we mean?

Is speed good or is it bad?

I've had a phone call today from a chap who advocated in the strongest terms that we should only refer to "use of speed" or "misuse of speed". He's clearly very much on side, and I agree that it is a worthy objective to try to clear away errors of understanding arising from all the "speed related" words.

I've had a go at the subject on this Safe Speed page:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speed.html

... but I think there's plenty more work to do.

Any comments or advice?

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

On the whole, a clear piece that lays the foundation for reasoned explanation as to why the obsession with speed enforcement is dangerous.

That said, two terms that I would change are "excessive speed" and "numerical speed". To me, "excessive speed" means speed in excess of that appropriate for the conditions (i.e. speed that is inappropriately fast). I would choose the term "unlawful speed" to replace it because, IMO, that better describes a speed that, while exceeding the speed limit, is not necessarily excessive for the conditions.

WRT to "numerical speed": personally, I don't like the term. I can't quite put my finger on why, but I prefer to use "absolute speed" (even though that speed is relative to a road that is travelling the cosmos at huge velocity!)

HTH,

_________________
Will

'Numerical speed' better conveys the idea of speed limits often being set to arbitrary values, in my opinion.

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

Huh

Sigh, Political Correctness or Orwellian Doublespeak, call it what you will.

Someone who nicks a watch from a jeweler is stealing.
Someone who sells you a car which they say has an MOT when they knwo full well it deosn't is lying.
Someone who breaks a posted speed limit (whether it's appropriate or not) is in the eyes of the law speeding.
It's not difficult really.

Sigh, I think that you've missed the entire point of this discussion. It's not about political correctness, it's about choosing terms that concisely deliver the intended semantics.

Sure, "speeding" describes the offence where a motorist travels at an unlawful speed. However, that speed is not necessarily excessive. If it were, then every police officer who drives faster than the speed limit would be driving dangerously.

Of course, by your definition, every police officer who drives faster than the speed limit is guilty of the offence of speeding, no matter what the reason for doing so.

_________________
Will

All criminals think they are harmless - you know!

None can face up to their crimes - and that includes us - the motorist!

So the politically correct nerds play with words to reduce or excuse the crime, and they make up unbelievable excuses to explain some of these crimes if and when we get to court!

Trouble is - these same people play with the s word to make the crime of all speeding sound much worse than it is.

Yes - I have been the BiB on many occasions to a good many quite dangerous drivers, and have gone for jugular when been called on to give evidence in the courts , but have given the really acid lecture and warning to the lesser speedsters!

But we do have to retain speed limits - because that is common sense. We have to have rules on the road - safety for all. However, there should be still be some flexibility as to what is acceptable and what is not.

So the answer to this is to create some new 'acceptable' terms and expressions to explain (or some may argue excuse) what people are doing is it? Wouldn't it be better to directly tackle the misconceptions about the s word (as SS is doing) rather than resorting to bastardising the language as the forces of PC have sought to do for some 20 odd years?

But, Paul proposes the term "numerical speed" to mean the speed at which the vehicle travels. In other words, the speed as indicated by the speedometer. There is no reference to speed limits in that term.

For example, 50 mph would be the numerical speed if the vehicle was travelling at 50 mph. The numerical speed says nothing of whether the vehicle is travelling under, at, or over the speed limit, or even whether any speed limit applies.

_________________
Will

Yeah...

I'm searching for the best and most precise terms - I don't want to change the language - I just want to use it as well as possible. Sometimes that might mean ignoring any term that has built in ambiguity, or even an emotional value.

Isn't it funny that "speed" on the road is generally seen as bad, but "speed" in an internet connection is generally seen as good? And don't anyone tell me that "speed" on the road is bad - it isn't. All travel involves speed, and we correctly wish to travel as fast as safely possible. Speed on the road is only bad if safety thresholds are exceeded - these are some of the problems we're up against.

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

I have to agree with Rigpig here.

We should not attempt to change the definitions of the terms, or try to come up with new (even if more accurate) terminology.

Speeding is and always has meant to exceed the posted speed limit.

The problem is that we are now faced with inappropriate speed limits and over zealous/non-discetionary enforcement of those limits.

So, you need to ask some basic questions of your aims.

Are you trying to go back to the days of Police enforcement of speed limits whereby a degree of discretion was the norm. (This approach accepts that people DO speed but that if the circumstances are not dangerous and if they are not travelling at really excessive speeds then it is generally ignored)

Are you trying to get speed limits changed to reflect the fact that today's vehicles are safely capable of speeds over and above the ones that being set. If you choose this approach, then you have to accept that if this happens then anyone who then exceeds that new limit will not have any defence.

You have to be careful about what the message is that you are sending out, and I feel that trying to change the terminology does not send the right sort of messages. It will, I think, just make you look like some crazy member of the PC brigade and thus fall into the hands of the likes of Brunstrom and his ilk who will use this to discredit anything else you have to say.

Respectfully,

Biker-Russ

Hmm, I realised this but still thought my point was valid. 'Numerical speed' is the 'raw speed' of the vehicle. The number of miles it will travel in one hour, continuing as it is. This is as opposed to 'Excess speed', which takes account of the conditions and so can vary without the vehicle's 'numerical' speed changing.

Hard to say what I mean, and probably far too petty to worth bothering about

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

How curious that even discussing the terminology has led to a series of misunderstandings!

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

Indeed! However, I don't find that in the least surprising. As a technical writer, I expect discussion with editors (who have the final say in such matters), marketeers, and engineers. Hopefully, the result is copy that is both concise and clear to the intended audience.

Engineers want to use their latest jargon. Marketeers tend to bend and twist the rules of grammar to help sell their products (for example, the use of nouns as verbs as in "to fragrance your house"). Editors, normally are reasonable people. However, their backgrounds may give editor and author different understanding in respect of terms used.

That said, such differences of opinion are not something to dwell on. If you can come to a compromise, you do so. What matters is that your target audience can understand your copy and for that you need to use their terminology. For example, would "actual speed" be a more-instinctive term than either "numerical speed" or "absolute speed" considering our target audience?

_________________
Will