Safe Speed Forums

Actually, taking your view that limits and cameras may be useful, I don't think you necessarily are in a minority. What we really object to is effectively the misuse of limits and cameras not their existence per se.

If limits were set at 85th percentile and not for political or other reasons and if cameras were outside schools at 15.30 we might agree with you wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, the whole system has been distorted by misguided control freaks and "car haters".

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

When I took the training to be an accident investigator we were taught that before you can deal with a problem you need to quantify and understand what the problem is, hence why root cause analysis is so important - it quantifies the problem without going of into irrelevancies.

Yes the examples I gave NOW are very highly regulated and professional in thier approach, however, in the early days they were not, how did they learn, often painfully.

But here we have system that has not quantified what the real problem is, what factors should be concentrated on yet huge amounts of time, effort, manpower and money are being expended on something that applying crude RCA shows it to be a secondary factor - ie a severity factor.

RCA shows us the cause of the problem, once we know that we can work on a solution.

At the moment we are working on a solution without actually knowing the cause of the problem.

On this forum we have talked about advanvced driving, attitudes, 'Mind Driving', these are concepts that could be explored using behavioural safety, yet is officialdom looking at this? Not bloody likely, it doesn't raise money!

If you apply RCA to speed camera policy, it really only makes sense as a. a money making exercise and b. a severity reduction exercise, NOT an accident / incident reduction exercise.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

Okay, I see what you're saying about speeding reduction being a severity reduction exercise, but does it not act also as an accident reduction tool, even though it doesn't necessarily focus on the cause of the accident? I struggle to understand why a reduction in speed cannot be viewed as an accident reduction tool, albeit a relatively ineffective one in comparison to more stringent driver training.

Which brings us back to the route cause again, i.e. poor driver attitude/behaviour. I think that this is being recognised, you can see it now when you compare how driving tests used to be 20 years ago to how they are today. God knows how much extra funding and manpower has been poured into the new tests but I would imagine it would be more than has been sunk into the speed camera network. Is this not evidence that the problem has been recognised and started to be tackled? Whether this is the correct way of tackling it, and whether the driving test is sufficiently taxing/appropriate is probably for another debate!

Peyote, I don't think you are in a minority on here wanting more traffic officers and human roads policing, I think that means you are pretty much in the majority.

A few points though.



How can this be the case, if you don't remove the cause of accident how can you possibly prevent the accident from happening, if you adjust on of the parameters of the accident - ie speed, all you are doing is reducing severity.



100% correct, driver training is possibly the most effective tool, next to more efficient road design.



Well for the test, when I sat my test over 20 years ago I had to perform all the manouvres including a short highway code test. My wife sat her test 5 years ago, and performed 2 of the manouvres (possibly why she is unable to reverse a car) and the theory test is a joke. Why would imagine that more funding has gone into the test? Hundreds of Millions has gone into the camera network (due to hypothecation) almost nothing has gone into the test "improvements".



No, see above, simply a knee jerk reaction to make it appear that something is being done.



Erm, too late I think
Seriously, I don't see how the 2 cannot be connected. I would suggest that 99.9% of accident reduction policy has been directed at automated speed enforcement, the remaining 0.1% of the effort looks at training, engineering, more rather than less traffic police etc.

Speed cannot be viewed as an accident reduction tool because it is not the cause of accidents, in and of itself, quite simply!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Peyote,
speedometers, redlights, and Blood Alcohol Contents are easily readable, though they ONLY measure those things.
Driver qualifications, skills, behaviors, and attitudes are - presently - not easily readable, though they have a gestalt that speedos, redlights, and BACs can never have.
No, we can't just revoke them, not without due process. We'd retest those who are, or seem, least likely to pass first, so that it were [grammarcheck] better justified to revoke their licenses when they fail, while giving those who might need or want the extra time, the extra time, along with those who are most likely to pass anyway.
That expeditiously accentuates the positive by eliminating the negative, while eliminating the negative by accentuating the positive (not necessarily a redundant staement).
If you reduce the number of people that die, but increase the number of people who are seriously injured, the number of KSI's actually stays the same, which means you haven't improved the trend, so you now need liars to do more figuring. However, if you increase the number of idiots driving with these 'lowest common duh-nominator' philosophies and policies in place, how much more figuring will need to be done when the number of KSI's negatively changes the trend?
Didn't you say something about the attitude of the driver needing to be changed? You seem to be of two minds on this subject.
I am not.
20MpH limits will not improve anything (unless the population of the country - or the world - drops faster than it's risen since 1993). A crooked statistician will surreptitiously play with the numbers (either the KSI's or the population itself) to make it seem so, and then this post will be deleted by thinkpol ...
and you will know, as always, that the party is always right.
Right?
Forewarned is forearmed.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

The other problem with focusing on reducing the severity of incidents is that the more simplistic fools in government think they have 'solved' the problem and stop putting effort and resources into the things that have a real impact, thus the real improvements in road safety slow down, decline and reverse and we are back to square one.

Forgot to add, this isn't going to be a quick fix in this government solution, like the industries I previously mentioned it will take time, the explosive & petrochem industries took about 15-20 years to really have an effective change in culture with the benefit of regulation and highly trained / qualified people within it. I suspect that driving will take a generation to show significant improvements.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

Nope sorry Guys, you going to have to do a bit more explaining for me. It'll be good practice though for when you sell your message to the Sun reading massive!

A reduction in speed limits will reduce the severity of accidents, but will not affect the number of accidents? How? Surely the increasing time that a driver has to "play" with is going to have a knock on effect on the number accidents as well as the severity of any accidents that do happen? I'm not at all sold on it only affecting the severity I'm afraid.

Concerning the driving test, hasn't it been expanded to include more extensive theory tests? Haven't hazard awareness test been introduced? I'm sure these must've cost a lot to implement. Considering the increasing numbers of drivers on the roads and the increasing complexity of the tests surely there must've a corresponding increase in investment too?

I know this driver training will not be a quick fix, you can't just revoke 50% (or however millions) of drivers licences in one fell stroke, so surely other methods are needed which should include more trafpol, but why exclude lower speed limits from the tool box if they work?

The Rush - You're right I am in two minds about this. I just dont see that the use of speed limits and associated enforcement equipment is mutually exclusive to driver education! I understand you and others on here don't see the former as effective (or indeed useful) and I'm trying to understand why. The bit I'm struggling with is the concept of reducing speed limits leading to the same number of accidents but reducing the severity of them, in my mind it would reduce both, (possibly at an expontential rate so there'd be a point were reducing them further would be pointless).

Okay, firstly, and most obviously, knocking out a new rule does not ensure compliance. That said, neither do speed cams, since the number of tickets issued has increased out of proportion with the growth in scams.

However, empirically, speed in excess of the speed limit is listed in official figures as being any grade of factor is less than 5% of serious accidents. Upon further investigation of these reports, it becomes clear that in those situations where it is a factor it is seldom ever present without further factors which are present in far more than 5% of accidents. In simple terms, those accidents had a statistically high chance of happening, regardless of the speed.

The old line "its simple physics" is frequently trotted out in an attempt to prop up the flawed "speed kills" dogma. Well, it isn't! Simple physics would tell us that speed can, in and of itself, never be responsible for an accident, as things can miss each other at any speed! Even in those situations where speed is identified as playing a part, it is merely a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. Not ever.

Only a fool treats a symptom and neglects the underlying condition.

Simpler?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

OK, think about it like this, if I drive into an area late at night that has a 20mph speed limit, but there are no other obvious hazards, my driving brain is telling me - OK a cautious 30 is good here, however the law is telling me "naughty boy, 20 or you are a child rapist" so I shift to 2nd and keep looking at the speedo. Now a drunk who has chosen to adhere to the drink drive laws walks out in fron of me and I hit and kill him without braking, because I was looking at the speedo too intently. Had I been driving at a natural speed I would have observed him and probably stopped, or indeed hit but at much lower speed than had I been doing 20. Work that one out, lower speed limit higher impact speed - this isn't made up it is the result of the tests in Europe, but because traffic flow is reduced, the results appear favourable.

Or another example, if I told you I had a cure for cancer that was 90% effective what would you say. I'm guessing you would say brilliant. OK, now what if I tell you that my cure is Euthanasia at the age of 30, because statistically the over 30's are much more likely to contract cancer. Suddenly you can see that my cure is bollox, now apply the same flawed principal to speed kills - see where I am going with this?

Okay, I think I understand your arguments Odin, though I've always been skeptical of the "staring at the speedo" argument. It's just something I've never experienced, but then I'm not as much of a driver as many folk out there, I don't rely on my driving licence to keep my job so probably don't value it as much. Having said that, I still don't find it that difficult to keep below the speed limit without staring at the speedo, a glance is enough. Maybe I just can't empathise with this argument, be interested to see that European research though.

RE: the cure for cancer thing, I can see that the "speed kills" philosophy isn't strictly accurate, but is it even meant to be? I've always seen it as an advertising strapline, not necessarily to be taken literally. Of course "speed" doesn't kill, any scientist will be able to confirm that, but "travelling at an inappropriate speed is more likely to result in a fatal accident than travelling at an appropriate speed" doesn't have the same impact!

RobinXe - Only 5% of accidents have speed as a factor, you're suggesting that there are additional factors that, combined with the speed, caused the accidents? But only in 5% of cases. Speed wasn't even a factor in 95% of other cases? I find that hard to believe, but I'll take your word that, that is what the reports say! If the speed limit in these cases was reduced then surely excessive speed would be a factor in more cases. If this limit was then enforced then the number of accidents involving these excessive speeds would be reduced... ...hmm, that doesn't sound right.

RE: The simple physics thing, I'm from the old school science set. I can't understand why, if a driver is given more time to react to a hazard they can't avoid an accident more easily. They can give themselves more time by driving more slowly, but only if they maintain the same level of concentration (this is where Odin's argument comes in). So the issue should be maintaining the concentration level in addition to reducing the speed, shouldn't it?

No offence intended, but that suggests to me that you plod along roads that you know very well, including the respective speed limits. Now think of me, I pound the roads of England for 6 months every year, in areas I have never been before, thus I cannot possibly know the limit prior to seeing the lollipop. Thus I have not become accustomed to driving the road at a particular speed, therefore to remain compliant I have to pay far too much attention to the speedo in these scenarios. Actually, as a general rule I will engage cruise to ensure compliance, so a machine is driving the car rather than a human - which do you think is safer?

I'm going to jump on Robins toes here and hope he forgives me:


No, because excessive speed has nothing to do with the posted speed limit, you can be prosecuted for excessive speed when below the posted limit.



No for the same reasons above, enforcing the speed limit does not reduce excessive speed accidents, because excessive speed accidents can occur under the posted limit as already explained.

Well, you're a bit of silly boy then. You can travel at 20 in third gear perfectly OK, and its very easy not to exceed a 20 limit if you chill out a bit

If you do need to look at your speedo don't look down at it and stare at it for five seconds, a quick flick of the eye will do. If you can't manage that and observe what's going on in front of you you need to drive a bit slower frankly, or take some lessons.

Try it, on residential streets it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to your average speed, and you can relax a bit, rather than put finger dents in yur steering wheel. It'll save on brake pads and fuel as well, and suspension f the road's got humps.

So why do you regularly speed then (as you've frequently admitted)?

Perhaps it is you who needs the lessons? Since your posts on here suggest that you are totally unable to pick a speed commensurate to the conditions without a lollipop to give you guidance, I would suggest that you are possibly the most dangerous self confessed bad driver who has ever posted on here.

Anyway, any chance of you answering any of the awkward questions you dodged over the years?

[edit to add] It was noticed that you cherry picked the conversation to pluck an irrelevant statement out of context to try an prrove your non-point.

Peyote, slowing down a poor or dangerous driver only mean that they are poor or dangerous at a slower speed so in reality there is little change in accidents again only severity.

Also the current enforcement campaign is effectively educating drivers (and pedestrians) into behaving dangerously

Examples:

There is a road safety ad where a pedestrian steps out from behind a escort type van in front of a car which hits and kills her, the driver is talking to the body with the ghost of the woman in the background saying if you'd slowed down you wouldn't have hit me. Now the car is level with the front of the parked van when she steps out, At 30mph or even 20mph the car would have real trouble stopping, however, we have a 'road safety' advert that is effectively telling pedestrians that cars can and should be able to stop almost instantly - the dramatic effect could end up sending the wrong message.

We are being bombarded with messages that by slowing down / staying under the limit we are safe, yet there are times when you can be within the limit but dangerous, yet we are not teaching this to drivers as it doesn't meet with the overly simplistic approach of the pc speed kills brigade.

Roughly quoted from Road Craft the Police Drivers manual, 'The only safe speed is one that is appropriate for the road, weather and traffic conditions and enables the driver to stop, in a controlled manner in their lane or on their side of the road within the distance they can see to be clear.'

Or

Speed Kills

What has the most emotive impact? What is the most factual?

So why are we taking the emotive but factually incorrect and misleading approach to educating drivers?

As a safety professional (I work mostly in construction but have also worked in rail, a little aviation, manufacturing with chemicals and with bodies like TfL) If I were to try and run a safety campaign along the same lines as our road safety campaigns I'd probably be sacked and could lose my professional memberships on the basis of misconduct.

We used to rely on the three E's Education, Engineering & Enforcement these were pretty effective, now hey are being sidelined:

Education, the driving test hasn't kept pace with the way roads and traffic has evolved, it is need of a major overhaul, the theory test and hazard perception are extra costs yet as has been discussed here and on other driving forums are in parts factually incorrect, so what do they achieve apart from additional revenue?

Engineering, it costs money but is effective, is being sidelined in favour of reduced limits and cameras, again little real impact on safety but a good revenue earner. Also some engineering is now being used in a way that actually INCREASES the likelyhood of accidents, schemes that are designed to cause congestion with inappropriate phases.

Enforcement, as in the likes of In Gear being out on the roads pulling over drivers who may well be within the limit but are drunk, drugged, yacking on a phone, driving with fog lights blazing, all the 'little' things that are the hallmark of poor driver behaviour (bearing in mind that behaviour is a big factor to consider in improving road safety), this 'old fashioned' approach doesn't do wonders for clear up or conviction rates, however, smack a camera in - nearly every offence 'detected' gets a conviction and raises revenue, great for the clear up rates and good for HMG's coffers.

I have had three mobile camera sites shut down on safety grounds, hang on, something being done in the name of safety that actually increases the danger to other road users?

I have a hard time accepting the credibility of the current system.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

Sorry, it's a quiet night, so I got the calculator out. It is a well proven fact that for the eye to focus from a point around 300 yards away (ie out of the windscreen) to a point 2 feet away (ie the speedo) and then back again to 300 yards takes around 1 second to complete fully. Argue it all you like weepej, it is a fact, I just looked up the focus speed of the eye on google.

Right, so taking this fact into account, if we are travelling at 20mph, and the eye loses vision for 1 second, due to a "quick flick". We can now calculate the distance travelled whilst this driver is not looking at the road.
Since we know that:
Distance = Speed x Time
we get (1 hour is 3600 seconds):
Distance = 20 x (1/3600) which is equal to 2 x (1/360) or alternatively
2/180ths of a mile. Since one mile is 5280 feet, we simply divide 5280 by 180 which gives 29 1/3 feet.

Almost 30 feet of not looking at the road. So now talk to me again about this safe driving thing!

Actually, I do object to the existence of cameras per se. I don't object to well-set limits enforced with discretion though. I tend to go with what Paul used to say: cameras could have been slightly useful if they'd been used very peripherally and sparingly (i.e. not outside schools, because apart from anything else that's not where accidents actually occur mostly) from the start, but now that they've been abused to such a ridiculous degree, they're only fit for the scrapheap. People see a camera and rightly think "Stupid thing, the presence of the camera doesn't mean it's dangerous to exceed the speed limit here, quite the opposite in fact", and that's never going to change now. Whereas if they'd been used properly, people would have thought "Ah, there's a camera, there's obviously a good reason to keep to the speed limit here, even if it isn't readily apparent".

Peyote, do you think you could have a stab at telling us how you think cameras actually make the roads safer? I don't just mean "They slow drivers down, and that makes the roads safer", which is all you ever tend to get from most camera advocates. Can you actually explain in detail how you think cameras make the process and the psychology of driving safer? Can you give an example of a situation where a camera would actually prevent an accident that would have otherwise occurred, and can you demonstrate that the camera would be more effective than observation, anticipation, and the slowing down in areas of danger which they result in (all of which can be improved by driver training)? Also, how would the camera be more effective than a flashing sign (which have been shown to be three times as effective in slowing drivers down in the general area, since they don't just speed up as soon as they've passed it like they do with a camera)?

Sorry for all the questions. I'm afraid I'm going to have a few for you (but you can ask some back of course!) It's very rarely that we get a reasonable out-and-out camera advocate on this site, and you'll have to excuse me if I get a little overenthusiastic.

_________________
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)

Sorry, but I think that post describes weepej extremely well. Whining, having a go at others for speeding despite doing so himself, not being able to select a safe speed without reference to the speed limit, consistently ducking awkward questions, and taking single sentences out of context from long, interesting threads just so that he can attempt to score some points. I do get the impression that he reads every thread in its entirety, and ignores all the sensible anti-camera points that he can't argue with, only cropping up when he thinks he sees an opportunity to cherry-pick something in order to be sanctimonious or misrepresent someone.

_________________
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)

Bunkum. You don't even need to take your eyes off the road to look at your speedo, we haven't all got tunnel vision, and if you have you should be driving MUCH slower, or not at all.

In the [sur]real world we would not have to move our center of vision down and refocus our eyes to read the speed meter.
In the real world, we do.
That takes time.
Time that is not concentrated upon the road and the surrounding area.
Your vehicle obviously has a HUD to display your road speed, mine does not.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing