Safe Speed Forums

Christ, now we are entering the bounds of the ridiculous!

Weepej, it is science fact that we only have detailed sight in the centre of our field of view. You might not think it is taking you a second for a quick flick at your speedo but, unless you are actually a lizard, it really is. There has been an awful lot of study into things like this by people far smarter than you. For this reason, in dual pilot operations, we actually tell the other person when we are looking inside, to prevent all crew members having "heads in" simultaneously, and risking collision. Things develop just as quickly on the roads as they do in my field of aviation.

You might think that your peripheral vision is enough to pick up developing hazards ahead whilst checking your speedo. In reality, unless its a bus/lorry you're about to spank into, the odds aren't that great. Countless motorcyclists have been hit in SMIDSY type accidents whilst in the driver's peripheral vision. Motorcyclists are more conspicuous than children.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

My thoughts too RobinXe. Is he just having us on now?


Or strawman argument as it is known, but let's not go there again

Weepej, your aphasic-like relplies are enough to make me wonder what it is that's happened in your life to make you so anti libertarian.

We are as passionate about road safety as youself but if you don't look at the facts you're not going to find a cure.

You're like a prisoner in your scamera world; looking at the bars when you should be looking at the stars.

_________________
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.

No offence taken! Interestingly though your assumption isn't strictly correct. I do admit to travelling slower than many folk on the roads, but I'd never describe it as plodding! The majority of my driving takes place on roads I don't know, I don't own my own car, but regularly hire one to travel long distances (it works out cheaper than the train) therefore I'd say 95% of the roads I drive on are unknown to me.



Well? No I don't think I'll go down that particular route of argument!

You keep saying this, but I can't get my head around why it is the case! Maybe it's just me?



Maybe you should try and look at the ad campaigns from a behavioural change perspective rather than a strictly literal POV? The messages that are trying to be put across to the driving public aren't suitable for short sound bites, so "speed kills" is used as a hook, encouraging the driver to think about their behaviour and modify according to thier own logic. I struggle to believe that there is a significant number of drivers out there who simply slow down and assume they'll be safe.



Fair enough, I'm not surprised you have a jaded viewpoint! It doesn't automatically mean that the whole system is flawed does it?

Yep, I remember Paul using pretty much exactly the same argument when I first arrived at Safespeed! I’m afraid I wasn’t completely convinced then and I’m not now. Not everyone thinks like the safespeed folk do, I’m sure many other folk do view speed cameras as a form of warning as to the presence of blackspots, and I’m sure many also see them as a beneficial tool of road safety. I don’t think their image is half as bad as what some sections of the media would like to make out. But we’re talking about opinion here, so I’ll just respectfully disagree!



Jeez, you don’t ask for much do you?! Well, as I’ve said previously I believe the physics and physiology of it are quite simple. I.e. the slower a driver goes, the more time they have to react to any hazard that is presented to them. This IS simple physics/physiology no matter what anyone else says.

The psychology is where it all starts to get a bit murkier! If drivers view speed cameras in the same way as Safespeeders do then I think that yes, they will probably end up having a negative effect. You only need to read the posts on staring at the speedo, checking out the locations of speed cameras on Sat Navs and plotting driving routes around any speed camera enforced roads. The presence of the cameras encourages this kind of bad behaviour. Unfortunately I’m not sure the speed cameras are the cause of this behaviour. I think it may be the drivers who are the cause and it is there behaviour that needs changing.



No I can’t give an example, my experience of speed cameras is pretty limited and I don’t know the locations of the ones on the roads I travel on well enough to provide an example I;m afraid.

However, I can say that the camera will be more effective WITH observation, anticipation etc… They are not mutually exclusive!



From my experience flashing signs are worthless, they’re effective for a day or so then get ignored. Speed cameras at least have the advantage of providing a penalty if they are ignored. I’d be interested in the research which suggests they are more effective, this doesn’t tally with my experience.



Woah there! I’m not an out-and-out camera advocate! I’m sure there are examples where they have been put up without any real thought, just like any other piece of street furniture (traffic lights, roundabout ect…). SE previous posts seemed to confirm this. But I’m not convinced there is a conspiracy behind them to make money by fleecing the “beleaguered British motorist”, which incidentally is also something I don’t believe. You see, even non-Safespeed acolytes can be sceptical!

I can't believe that you don't know the elementay biology of the eye, because yes we do all have tunnel vision, have a look at this website before making yourself look any more silly:
http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/PublicWebsite/public_howtheeyeworks.hcsp

But since I suspect you still try to dispute well known facts, here is a quote from the site:


Please try to at least research your ridiculous claims prior to posting next time.

I'm not sure how its physiology, but I'll take a stab at correcting it all the same.

If drivers were to do nothing but hold the controls and stare out of the windscreen looking for emerging hazards, then yes, reduced speed would increase time to impact for a given distance to target. Believe it or not, this is essentially what we would like to see! This is the role that the driver should be taking, without the distraction of having to scan for cameras, and scan the speedometer. The average driver has been empirically shown to be highly capable of judging what is a safe and appropriate speed for the conditions. Most drivers, with more than the bare minimum of experience, would also be able to judge loosely what their speed was, noone is going to be doing 60mph believing they're at 30mph! The problem is that current enforcement techniques take no account of these facts, or the fact that speed in excess of the limit is largely inconsequential in accident causation, per the official statistics.

I dont think anyone is saying scrap speed limits, nor neglect to enforce serious excesses, but the current fixiation with speed to the detriment of other factors, and the setting of speed limits without consideration to whether they are appropriate, or why, is having a detrimental effect on road safety as a whole.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

The physiology aspect of it is the point at which the information reaches the body and is processed and turned into action. Basically reaction time, although when you're dealing with fractions of a second it maybe the case that even such aspects as the speed at which the light sensitive cells at the back of your eyes transmit that information to your brain are significant.

Either way, these are all factors that could potentially be measured and hence fall into my intepretation of "simple"!



I think this is the role that most drivers do fulfil, i.e. they drive safely without being excessively distracted by speed cameras. Unfortunately there is still the significant minority who do not fall into this category. These are the ones Weepj rails against, and I completely agree.



Like I said earlier, I'm still not convinced that there is a current fixation on speed or that limits are routinely set without consideration. It smacks too much of conspiracy theory with minimal positive results for those involved with it.

Fewer traffic police as camera numbers soar, and those that remain are target-driven. Its neither rocket science, nor a conspiracy, just big business! Are millions of pounds in fines raked in minimal?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

There IS a lot of consideration as to what level to set speed limits. Unfortunately, low weight is given to the 85th percentile speed (i.e. the motorists vote) but the following are probably higher up the pecking order:

- Do any Councillors live on this road?
- Do the locals keep wasting our time complaining about speed when what they should do is move to a cul-de-sac?
- How much money could we make by just squeezing down another 10mph?
- How pleased will the Government be with us? Will we get more funds?

It is a fact that many limits are set for political reasons.

Do you know of any limits which, after consideration, have been raised?

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

I was under the impression that traffic police numbers were lowered to concentrate on other areas of crime which had previously been on the increase? Coincidence that the speed camera technology became available just as house burglaries/street crime shot up? And aren't the speed cameras supposed to be operated on a not for profit basis?

Where there is one point of view, there is always the equal and opposite!



Yeah, I've read these stories in the media too! Never sure what to believe and what kind of percentage the political motivated changes actually make up in the total numbers of changes are though.



Only one that I'm aware of, and even then only through word of mouth, I believe the A22 in Surrey had a stretch that was increased from 30mph to 40mph.

I find it interesting that folk should think that roads should have their limits increased, if there is more traffic on a given stretch of road then the only way to fit even more on is by lowering the overall speed.

Again you are falling into the "it seems obvious" trap, much like the Monty Hall problem (too complex to explain, google it for an explanation).
The easy example would be this, get a garden hose, and turn on the water. Now half cover the end with your thumb, does the water flow faster or slower? Again it is simple physics, but the exact opposite of what you would expect. So in order to increase flow you must increase speed.

[edit to add]
Sorry I just thought, are you making a comparison to the motorways, where a lower limit is imposed to clear a traffic jam several miles ahead? This is a different principal altogether, this is used to stop approaching traffic feeding a shockwave jam, by slowing the approaching traffic, it means that drivers are less likely to slam on their brakes and start another shockwave. Thus evening the flow back to normal speed.

There is a Government driven review by local authorities going on at the moment to assess speed limits on rural roads. In the usual Government doublespeak, this means "Hey you Councils. Reduce speed limits everywhere, or else." Want to bet that none go up?

I just want limits set by a recognised and proven method and not by transient politicians trying to control the population for spurious reasons.

I'm cynical about this because there appears to always be a hidden agenda against motoring to everything this lot do. For example, just look at the stupid "green" VED changes. A tax on ownership which you pay even if you actually don't even start the engine. As in someone's signature, motoring = freedom and, as such, must be stopped.

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

Peyote, sorry if I seem repititious, a good driver will drive appropriately to the conditions, they will understand why they need to drive slower - weather, unfamiliarity with car/area etc, looking for a turning, traffic and so on...

Forcing a driver to slow down (by reducing limits) is an external control, there is still no control from the driver over thier behaviour or apptitude, remove the control we still have a bad driver. Basic principals of safety state that if you remove a severity factor you do not stop the accident you must deal with a casual factor, from your post I get the feeling that you are still taking speed as a casual factor rather than a severity factor.


From experience as a driver covering 40k a year and as an accident investigator I can honestly say there are drivers who believe that if they obey the limit they will be safe. I have also had personal experience with the misfortune of being hit head on twice last year by drivers coming round a blind 'u' shaped turn I saw them and was able to stop, they were not, from a speed control point of view neither were over the posted limit so camera enforcement would have done nothing, slowing them down by 10 mph wouldn't have prevented the accident, had they been driving on the right side of the road then no accident. Both stated that they felt they were safe drivers as they obeyed limits !!

We have drivers who will arbitraily set thier own 'safe speed' (usually well below the posted limit) and try to block others from passing, an extremely opinionated and more importantly dangerous behavioural attitude to take.

In terms of adverts, for a safety campaign to be truly effective it needs impact, yet MUST NOT be misleading or give an incorrect message, based on pedestrian behaviour it would seem that these adverts are misleading. I've spoken to a lot of non car drivers about how long it takes a car to stop, all judge the distance to be well short of what even a modern car to achieve, granted I haven't conducted a fully funded study, only asked about 50 people I know, but an interesting line to study further.

I'd be interested in your thoughts about the other points raised - the three E's

_________________
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

I'm not sure I would call it an "it seems obvious" trap. In fact I would go as far as saying that your hosepipe analogy (which incidentally I quite like!) is the logical, but incorrect, conclusion on first impressions. I don't think a hosepipe can really be viewed in the same way as a given road on the road network. For it to be a suitable example you would need to include a sprinkler (or similar flow restriction device at one end) and a faulty washer at the other end! The point I'm getting at is that you can get a better through flow by reducing the flow to a constant (optimum) speed across the system. By increasing the flow at only one part of the system is what creates bottlenecks, jams etc. Actually finding out what the optimum speed is, is the difficult bit, especially as it is going to vary for every car on the system, unless they are doing the same journey.

I can see exactly why you're cynical and suspicious. Maybe I'm just too optimistic.

I guess the trouble is that in my view, motoring does not equal freedom. It's a way of achieving a certain degree of freedom, but by no means the only way and in certain circumstances causes more restrictions on freedom than it gives. If the government wishes to restrict this particular "freedom" then I don't view it in the same way that others (safespeeders?) do.

Peyote hits nail squarely on head! The setting of speeds is extremely complex, needing to take into account classes of people wanting to use the road, and to get to where and so on......

This is why the speed limit should NEVER be influenced by a NIMBY residents who don't like the traffic noise.

Hmm, can speed be a severity factor as well as a causal factor? I’m afraid I’m not to up to date on the rules of safety. I understand what your saying about the cause being driver behaviour and removing the speed element not affetcing the outcome, but is it really that simple? I'm struggling with considering each factor as either causal or severity.



That’s quite scary really, surely these people shouldn’t even have licenses if they think like this? Is it ignorance, complacency or stupidity?

Out of interest do you know when these drivers passed their tests? I'm intrigued about whether the new test has had any effect on driving standards, though I guess you can't get an accurate figure for years, perhaps decades.



Yep, the other end of the spectrum isn’t it. A bit like the drivers who arbitraily set thier own 'safe speed' (usually well abovethe posted limit) and try to force others to drive faster by tailgating and other agressive behaviour. Fortunately most people fall between these two extremes!



It is interesting, and something that requires further investigation before I can say whether I consider it to be misleading. I was speaking from my personal opinion when I considered the “speed kills” message as an advert rather than a direct message. Maybe I don’t empathise well enough with the general public?! Or just give them too much credit (ref: your two examples earlier).



I'll have to get back to you on them, dinners ready!

Oof! I don't think I'd completely agree with that!

Speed limits should be set taking into account all users of the road and this is likely to include local residents, probably more so than those just using the roadto get from A to B. Having said that if their main objection is traffic noise a better option could be to use a different surfacing material, or acoustic bunding/fencing.

Sometimes NIMBYs do have a valid point/concern. Sometimes!

Dinners over!



Aren’t they a step in the right direction though? Sure there seem to be major flaws, but the fact that there are separate theory and hazard perception tests means that these aspects are recognised. It is now a case of implementing them properly with the right input from IAM et al. I can’t believe they can be any worse than the 45 min/10 highway code question test I did 10-15 odd years ago.



I think there could be a conflict of interests in many of these new engineering projects. Much of the new work I see being carried out is an attempt at helping the pedestrian element of the road users to use the network more effectively. This seems to often result in more pedestrian accessible areas at the cost of motor vehicle access. Previously the roads were designed for motor vehicles to the detriment of pedestrians, this is a way of rectifying the last few decades of catering too much to one user over another.

“You can’t please all of the people all of the time”



Yep, so why not smack a camera in and double the amount of In Gears on the roads!