Safe Speed Forums

There's something else coming out of this issue of high numbers of speedo checks in the area of speed cameras. If you haven't seen it already check out this new Safe Speed page:

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

Amongst other things it contains:

"It is clearly in the nature of driving that we "look around" regularly. It follows that our attention is routinely spread rather thinly around the possible objects of interest. We compensate for this effect by working with a series of snapshots, and we ensure that we normally return to each part of the scene before a situation can develop into a danger. So does it matter at all if an experienced driver allows his attention to be diverted to the speedo as long has he does not look away from the scene ahead for too long? We think it's critically important."

The DfT Speed Camera FAQ:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 507638.pdf

Contains:

Q17 If drivers are to comply with the speed limit they will need to constantly take their eyes from the road ahead to check their speedometers. This is dangerous.

It is not reasonable to claim that drivers are forced to watch their speedometers rather than the road. Safe driving requires concentration at all times and qualified drivers should be well aware of the approximate speed they are travelling without the need to constantly check their speedometers. There are a number of situations in which it is necessary for drivers to be aware of what is happening on the road in directions other than immediately ahead. Examples include using rear and side view mirrors and checking at junctions and roundabouts in order to give way. These all require drivers to concentrate on other sections of the road other than those ahead and there is no evidence to suggest that such short and temporary diversions of concentration are a safety risk.

There's some interesting stuff emerging here.

Firstly, I tend to agree with the DfT that moderate speedo checking isn't much of a safety issue because we really do use grasshopper attention to scan the scene ahead. So long as we return to hazards ahead frequently enough we shouldn't get into trouble.

Secondly, The rate of speedo checking in the area of cameras as reported by our visitors is far in excess of "moderate" speedo checking and really is very likely to pose a safety hazard.

Thirdly, and the reason for this post: If our road safety systems are tolerant to moderate speedo checking - we're saying that it's OK to look away from the road for one second - then it's also OK to travel a few miles per hour faster. The whole speed kills picture of "emergency braking to avoid an accident" suggests that we have to make an instant response to sudden danger ahead. But if we're really safe enough to look away for one second we're also denying the existence of "sudden danger ahead".

In other words, the DfT claim: "...there is no evidence to suggest that such short and temporary diversions of concentration are a safety risk." tells us that we should not normally expect to face "instant danger" when we're driving. If we don't have to face "instant danger" then we don't have to worry about absolute braking distance either.

This is sounding good to me. I don't believe that anything normally happens "suddenly" when we're driving. If something appears to heppen suddenly, it's almost always because we're late noticing it start to happen. I think this connection is one more small piece of the road safety jigsaw falling into place...

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

Agreed: But this also raises the point, again, of how experienced drivers judge their speeds, and it is connected to the speed limit being correctly set. On roads, where the limit was set before the world went mad, I very rarely have to check my speed; I know what the limit speed 'feels' like. Even passing through cameras, on such roads, my speedo checking is cursory, I already know if I need to slow down or not.

The times I find myself obsessively checking my speedo past a camera, are on roads that have had their limits recently reduced. These limit speeds are now so unnaturally slow that it is difficult to judge it by feel alone, and speedo gets far too much attention.


Kaz

This is an extremely important point. Yes, all drivers should be "approximately" aware of their speed, the question is how accurate do your approximations have to be?

As we have seen from other posts, people are receiving NIPs for exceeding the speed limit by as little as 4mph or less! No wonder we are paranoid about checking our speed!

In a modern car, you can be so isolated from road, wind and engine noise that judging speed to that degree can be almost impossible. I would defy anyone to be able to tell the difference between 30mph and 34 mph with their speedometer covered.

I drive both cars and bikes, on a bike the problem is different but equally valid. On my 1100cc bike, the difference in throttle position between these two speed is microscopic, and the difference in engine RPM is probably around 200rpm.

At least three of the many many speed cameras I pass through on my journey to and from work are located on downward inclines. Two are in the Docklands Link tunnel on the downward slopes in both directions, and one on the East Ham flyover at the bottom of the flyover.

If you do not consciously check and re-check your speedometer on approaching these speed cameras you WILL go through them above the speed limit. It is not enough to be "approximately" aware in these cases.

Regards,

Biker-Russ

Personally I'm quite convinced that my driving would be safer and my speed choices better with no speedo and no speed limits. The entire speed limit system seems to be a distraction from ultimate driving. However it's well worth tolerating appropriate speed limits because many drivers don't even aspire to perfecting their skills and attitudes - and they have just as much right to use the roads as I do.

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

Driving a not particularly high performance car the difference in rpm between 30 and 34mph in fifth, is not even readable. Using a lower gear as suggested by someone fron the IAM results in so much acceleration when passing over minor potholes that I would have to drive 10mph below the limit to stand any chance of remaining within it.

5th gear sounds too high for 30mph. I tend to use 3rd if it's in a built-up area, or a narrow street, as it gives more control and allows me to slow to 20 or less without changing gear, otherwise 4th. I've never really noticed acceleration going over potholes, but then I tend to slow down on approaching them; and my car only has 45bhp! :p

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

Is this because the jolt moves your foot on the throttle? If it is, I'd suggest that there's something odd or imperfect about the throttle itself or maybe possibly your foot position. Has the throttle got a very weak return spring?

I'm asking because I've never really had this problem even in very powerful cars.

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

Intrigued by this. Does not cause me any such problems. Third gear is nice safe gear to use at 30mph and in urban areas in particular.

As for speed checks .... Sure I can judge the speed of my vehicle at any one time - to within 10% either way!
Even do cursory check on sight of the scam signs Especially when visiting in "danger Pratnerships"

Good old observation and anticipation skills are the keys to road safety. Sadly, too many think they have them and do not, and too many are poor judges of their own capabilities (and not just in driving skills!)

Really would like to see plans to improve overall L-Test standard (as the old Mad One keeps saying!), and post-test courses for all to combat this!

Lots of torque very low down and only a couple of cm pedal travel. At 30 in 3rd the turbo is spinning nicely as well. Maybe my size 13s don't help. Oh and a minor pothole around here usually has a bunch of guys with lamps on their heads at the bottom.



I can drop to 20 in 5th and the car will still pull on the flat, but it does have 105bhp more, though obviously not at <1500rpm

In fact, every car I have had in the last 10 years has been happy to drop a good bit below 30 in top. Including the three 1.6L Citroen BXs I've had.

cant see the problem with the checks. when they are done near a camera they are usually done at a low speed such as 30mph so going at just a few meters/sec there is plentyof time to check and maintain speed and react to the majority of hazards or kids running out on the street etc.
change this to removing the limit as paul says and the time to react reduces causing more damage and less time to avoid accidents.
I have tried most tricks with the accelerator in many different types of car of many different powers and find only the most inept or stupid would have trouble keeping to within 10% of the speed limit. Rubbish about cars jerking up in speed over potholes included as well.

_________________
It's Champion Man

Gawd. At 30mph we don't have to pay attention because we're only "going at just a few meters/sec"? Don't you know that 50% of pedestrian die in 30mph impacts? 30mph isn't benign - it's potentially deadly. It's also 13.41 metres per second - more than "a few meters/sec" by any normal standard.

And who ever suggested that we're only talking about cameras in 30mph zones?


"removing the limit"

What on earth makes you think I want speed limits removed? I just want intelligent enforcement directed at safety violations, not technical ones.

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

In addition to Paul's comments on 30mph being far from benign, if you accept for a moment that all cameras are correctly placed (not a belief I hold btw), how can you possibly think it's acceptable to have these additional distractions in areas which are deemed to be dangerous?


Kaz

The point should also be made that even a driver who is travelling at or below the posted limit - and knows he is - is still likely to do a speedo check upon spotting a camera just to make doubly sure.

Regards,

Peter

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

And does that pose a danger?

No it does not pose a danger at all. Are we seeing people running off the road and saying to the police officer or ambulance man attending the scene "i just looked at my speedo and. OOOps"? No we are not.

_________________
It's Champion Man

How would you find out?


Would you ever be likely to? I mean, if you made an additional (and unnecessary) check of your speedo (even though obeying the limit), then looked back to find a collision now inevitable, what would you say to the Policeman afterwards? "Sorry, I wasn't paying attention properly"?

Even the least clued up drivers knowing that there is a specific law about that, so they are hardly likely to compound their problems by admitting to it!

Much more likely that they will say something like "they came out of nowhere", or even "they must have been speeding to have appeared in front of me so suddenly"

Paul's research so far seems to point very strongly towards this "distraction effect" being considerable. It may be early days to know for sure, as unfortunately the SCPs, the DfT and the Government all seem to deny this effect even exists, yet exist it must. It sounds very plausible to me, I mean something must explain the rises in fatalities that usually accompanies the deployment of speed cameras.

Do you have ANY idea just how quickly accidents happen?
No, clearly not.
A typical accident within an urban area happens in around one second.
That's right, ONE second - from driving along without a care in the world to all hell breaking loose.
Do you really think that squandering a good proportion of that precious second looking at your speedo is such a good idea?

Regards
Peter

Oh yes we are. Here's one:

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

And here is another - from last Tuesday's "Daily Mail" which reported that a 67 year old received breaks to both legs after being struck by a car. Allegedly, the driver saw the scamera, checked his speedo as he was sure he "was not speeding", braked hard when he saw the elderly geezer just appear in front of him and the ensuing skid caused him to strike the gent.

The alleged incident occurred at a scam site in the Bamber Bridge area of LanCASHire - home of over 360 "safety" cameras and where RTAs seem to be on the increase! (My colleagues in the A&E are starting to complain and whinge excessively about their non-stop workload here - and this scam policy is draining my bank! (and my budget! )

Checked the story out via A&E colleagues - and they did indeed treat an RTA victim, recently, for some serious breaks in both legs, and the driver for shock!

But of course he used the "suddenly and from nowhere" line, and probably mentioned the glance at his speedo to point out that he was not speeding!

Hmmm!

I think both drivers in these cases were shifting the blame for their own inadequacies.
The Daily Mail wouldnt be beyond spinning an accident into an anti camera story now would they?
The faster you go the more chance the pedestrian victim has of dying. Theres another fact for you.
Dont even go near the 'if the drivers were travelling a bit faster they would have missed them' argument as it isnt an argument at all.

_________________
It's Champion Man

That's a perfectly valid argument. What do you think is wrong with it?

Regards
Peter