rcartes wrote:
The results from this poll (incidentally, with a less than impressive 41 responses so far . . .) are interesting, but perhaps not for the reason the respondents expect.
I'm surprised at the small number of responses too. The web site gets about 1,000 visitors each day. The forums get about 100. Of the 100 forum visitors, about 30% are registered users, and about 15% of the registered users actually vote. I don't know what causes this. Perhaps it's partly due to the forums only having been running for a couple of months.
rcartes wrote:
Over a quarter of them claim that, in a 100 yard stretch, they would look at their speedometers 4 or more times. Idiots or what? Any competent driver knows the speed at which they are driving to within a few mph, so it would surely take even the most brain-dead petrol head only one look to check his/her speed? Or am I expecting too much of what I suppose we must reluctantly call their intellects?
Knowing your speed in miles per hour isn't necessary for good driving. I could drive safely for years on end with no speedometer and no reference to speed in miles per hour.
What we are seeing here is the way that real drivers respond to a substantial and immediate threat to 25% of their driving licences. We have to take speed cameras very seriously indeed because for many folk modern life and even employment is entirely dependent on the driving licence.
The nature of enforcement by speed camera is such that there is no room for error - and drivers respond by checking, adjusting and checking again.
I answered three times. I answered three times because that's what I do. I do it because I can't afford not to - I have to be certain.
If it's going to be effective, road safety policy must be based on real behaviour of real road users, not on some imaginary ideal behaviour.
Here we have real behaviour exposing the flaw in policy. It doesn't matter at all if checking the speedo three times is stupid. If that's what divers do, then that's what drivers do. Polcy makers should understand the full effects of their policies and have good evidence that the benefit outweigh the disadvantages. Presently their evidence is absolutely useless and the disadvantages are swamping the potential benefits.