weepej wrote:
I don't need to. The faster you go, the further out in front of you stretches the area in which, if something happens, you won't be able to avoid it.
Hmm, I think we're talking at cross purposes here. If there is a appreciable risk of something happening in front of you which you are utterly unable to avoid becoming embroiled in then you are absolutely going too fast. If this risk does not exist, then there is no significant danger in increasing speed. A roadsign or speed camera is utterly ignorant of these factors.
Of course we can argue the toss on what constitutes an appreciable risk. If we're worried about a meteor striking the earth mere millimeters from our front bumpers then we'd never leave the house. More sensibly perhaps, a driver coming the other way could fall suddenly ill at the wheel and swerve into our path, but we cannot drive around without passing opposing traffic!
This is where the risk management of drivers, and other road users comes into play. One of the keystones Paul laid down was that humans can become quite adept at this real-time risk processing, and indeed the majority of drivers are very good at it, as evidenced by the relative infrequency of collisions, given the levels of road useage.
The other key factor is that we must have a certain degree of faith that other road users will remain sufficiently predictable, otherwise we are back to the analogy of the opposing traffic swerving into our path. It is in this sense that we can start to approach the red-light issues.
Of course it is not always automatically dangerous to pass a red light, unless of course the controlling computer has some prior knowledge of impending meteor strikes. There is the apocryphal tale of the Australian lady who waited so long at a red light that she required hospitalisation for dehydration (four days at the last telling). One might suggest, however, that if another road user is there to witness the violation, then it was not a safe occasion! Modern lights have a plethora of sensors providing feedback on traffic flow, and they mostly tend to turn green on approach if the way ahead is clear.
The problem with passing a red light in the presence of other road users is that it unequivocally destroys the concept of predictability. This is not directly analogous to expectations of speed, mainly for the reason that the Eyeball Mk 1 is quite inept at accurately measuring things which fall outside our sphere of evolution, such as speed (above a sprint) and altitude. One does not view oncoming traffic at a junction and calculate "that red car is coming towards me at 28.5mph, so I am safe to pull out as long as the gap is at least 37.9m long", instead assessing the rate of closure, and making a real-time judgement. That said, finding a vehicle travelling at 60mph in a confined residential street is also capable of destroying the concept of predictability, but then noone is suggesting that that is safe or acceptable!
The crux of the matter is that speed limits are not always being set on the grounds of safety these days, and the manner of their enforcement likewise neglects the concept of safety, in preference for blind adherence to the letter of the law, which does not equate to automatic safety. Red light cameras do, of course, exist, but they are nowehere near as proliferative as speed cameras. The infinitely flexible human brain provides a far more reliable arbiter of what is safe, and is capable of a much more appropriate response to all manner of dangerous practices including, but not limited to, the use of excessive speed and the violation of red lights.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
