Safe Speed Forums

You have more likelihood of a breath test in our patch - because we are out and about and highly visible. We tend to pull those whose driving gives us cause for suspicion rather than at random - though we have done this during the odd "campaign of the month" routine - which we do inform the public about on the web site and in the local press - merely to warn and remind them not to be silly.

JJ- Kevin - Steve (suspect its Steve because of the way "Likelyhood" is spelled ) - for once you are partly right. If they know we are there and observing their behaviour - they are far less likely to take that chance. Same with our speed policy ... amazing how the unexpected BiB creates a nice tidy flow of drivers along the road.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

I agree and disagree:
1. I have been partly right on many occasions.
2. We are in agreement here. The unexpected BiB as you say increases the deterrent by making enforcement more widespread. Safety Cameras can't work IMHO without it to back up the system. It will be encouraged as long as I have any influence over the matter.

Funny you should say that Capri, I too know someone who suffered a similar fate after going to sleep on the back seat of his car while the engine was running (to keep the heater on during a particularly vicious cold spell).

The police officers in the case even admitted that they had considerable difficulty in waking him up (primarily because he was drunk), but that didn't stop him from being convicted of attempting to drive while unfit.

Unfortunately for Shaun in this particular incident, he was disqualified from driving until he took a retest. This sentence was handed down (according to the magistrate) because he was an ex prolific drink/disqualified driver who had offended on many occasions.
Although Shaun had managed to break his habit of drink/disqualified driving and stay on the right side of the law for the best part of 2 years (a record for him), he considered this last sentence to be so unfair that he now drives regardless and doesn't care that he is effectively banned.

It would seem that all the justice system managed to achieve in his particular case was to simply alienate someone who was doing his utmost to abide by the law (for once in his life), and in doing so has now created an individual who doesn't care any more if he is caught or not.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

From what I remember, and it's going back a few years now, he was getting a packet that he shoved in the glovebox earlier in the day. I can only presume(I was not there) that he would have been kneeling on the drivers seat and leaning over. I think what did is was that he was holding the keys as obviously it was locked beforehand. It's quite possible that it was a neighbour that called them, I'm sure we all know someone on our street that would complain at the slightest disturbance. So long as it's very occasional I wouldn't begrudge anyone having a party but unfortunatly somepeople just can't accept it for some reason.

It's a tricky one though the 'drunk in charge of a vehicle' offence. I can fully appriciate the merits of having a slighly more relaxed attitude to it, but I would perhaps stop short of having the engine on. The temptation is there when it gets very late, very quite and very lonely to jump into the drivers seat. I'm sure that the vast majority of the population wouldn't dream of it, but perhaps the temptation would be too great for some. However I would be much more in favour of people sleeping it off in the back. Perhaps if there was even a remote chance of someone sleeping overnight they should stick a duvet in just in case. Alternativly I'm sure a good landlord would lend a duvet in return for a deposit. If they are a rural pub it would be prudent to have one or two spare for this very situation.

There is only one problem I see with this policy of leaving sleeping drivers in the back - the morning after. If they have only had a few drinks it shouldn't be such a great problem but what if they have had more? In reality they proberbly should have got a taxi or booked a room, but if they have slept in the car, it's possible they could still be over the limit. Yet how many would want to stay in the car when they are awaken? I don't think even my cd/radio works without they keys being in the ignition.

I have used this little graph produced by the World Health Organisation before, I was just interested in knowing what folks opinions were on this comparison and why more isn't made of this risk comparison when Drink Driving is abhorred and Speeding is regarded as not worth bothering with.

When you look at the graph it would put driving at just under the drink driving limit on a par with exceding the speed limit by around 17%. In other words:
70 limit at 81.7
60 limit at 70.0
50 limit at 58.3
40 limit at 46.7
30 limit at 35.0

Not that far away from the ACPO guidelines strangely enough!

Here's the graph:




Pareto Analysis puts Alcohol related injury accidents just in as the lowest contributor in the 20% of accident contributory factors that cause 80% of the injury accidents in Cumbria whereas speed related contributory factors make up the vast majority of this 20%. I doubt that any Times journo is considering that sort of information or intelligence though, it wouldn't make a story would it?

You don't question anything, do you, as long as it comes from the 'experts'?

I ask you one question: by what possible mechanism does doing 70km/h increase your risk by 4.2 times above that at 60km/h?

Do you know where the figures in your graph come from in the first place? The paper in question is full of false assumptions and other holes big enough to drive a bus through.
As you would know if you ever bothered to analyse it.

Cheers
Peter

I'm not trying to be obtuse here JJ (or whoever), but this graph shows *absolute* blood alcohol content and *relative* speed ("Excess speed". Excess over what: posted speed limit? the speed that you would have driven in the same conditions? The 85th percentile prevailing at the time?

In general terms, if there are relative risks that are on the increase for two (not necessarily) independent variables, these can be made to overlap one another simply by playing with the Y intercept and gain of the axis. You happen to have mapped this quite well.

I think drunks go faster than they would if they were sober for a given set of conditions (except perhaps past a camera of course). This gives the variables mutual dependency at least in one direction.

Come on Peter, you must do better than that. The reason I revert to using expert opinion and reports made by them is because they are, well, the experts, that is why they study and report these issues with far more ability than you and I. Now I realise you don't like their results and you would most probably realise why I do but you have not given the equivalent expert denial of the report by passing your opinion only. I am of course making an assumption, probably reasonable, that your knowledge and training on the subject of risk and contributory factors in road accidents is not uo to the equivalent of the massed knowledge that went into producing and signing off the report.
Now that assumption being correct, I rather think it is, your denial of the report is quite futile.
I have looked at the results, questioned its validity and then presented it as an expert opinion that I would be too humble to refute, perhaps that is a quality you shoudl attempt to emulate rather than pass of this report as invalid.
Now the question is and remains, why, if the risk is equivalent, is drink-driving abhorred when speeding of equivalent (purported) risk is not?
Merely saying it isn't from an unqualified position of bias does not forward the debate. It is a typical response though and not unexpected. I didn't expect it from you though.

The mechanism is pretty obvious Peter, i shouldn't have to explain that to you, you would surely just deny it once more. Baaaaaaaaaaaaa Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

I'll help you a little Roger.
Look at the 60km/hr datum, it has a relative risk of 1 at 60 km.hr. This is therefore a 60km/hr speed limit.
As speed is increased above the limit, so does the relative risk of accident.
When the speed of 70 km/hr is reached, 17% above the 60 km/hr limit, the risk of accident occurence is 4.2 times that of the unitary (1) risk if travelling at the speed limit.
This doesn't mean there is always at least 1 accident when travelling at the speed limit, but the 1 provides a datum point with which to relate the risk above the speed of 60 km/hr.

The other speeds with the same relative risk have been calculated by adding 17% to the collection of speed limits. Not exactly correct as many other factors have been left out but it is a rough indicator of what the effect is at these speed limits.

If using a vehicle at any speed with the blood alcohol concentration at the drink drive prosecution level gives a relative risk of 4.2 then so does travelling at roughly 17% above the speed limit, or at those speeds for each limit which I placed in the small table above.

Does that help?
I appreciate what you are saying regarding the Y intercept etc but the relative risk of no alcohol and travelling at the speed limit are both shown with a "relative risk" of 1. I think you may have been alluding to some form of statistical jiggery pokery being carried out to make a point, this would surely only be he case if the relative risk of speed wwas 1 for 0 mph rather than that of the speed limit.

Oh, just noticed your last point, this would surely compound the problem rather than mutual dependency as the speed risk is one that is mapped without alcohol being involved.

Thanks.. hopeful...

So that graph curve is a snapshot of the case for a 60kph limit? That was the snippet I'd missed.

Was this over a given road or several hundred/thousands of roads? Was it taken a fair while ago when speed limits were set according to the 85th percentile? I suspect so. We fully agree as the speed increases above the 85th percentile the risk goes up quite dramatically. I daresay if the survey etc was repeated in todays nanny speed limit situation the results would be dramatically different.

Yup - happy with that curve now that I understand the situation was referring to the specific instance of a 60kph limit, thanks. However, the drink drive curve would appear to have a dramatically nonlinear X axis. The curves have been made to fit to prove a point. Not sure what pioint.

Sorry - that I do not understand. I've reread it slowly and again after a coffee - still don't get it.

Yup - it helps to some degree. Thank you. I understand now the curve up to 70kph and 80 mg/ml.

What I do not understand is the bit further to the right. Has the X axis of the alc curve been deliberately nonlinearised to make the next point fit the speed curve?

The risk of travelling below the normal free-flowing speed (which is at or around the speed limit if one is lucky) does not seem to feature in your graph, JJ. In fact relative risk increases quite dramatically too in that direction. See the red curves on the two graphs in http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speedlimits.html.

The shape of the speed risk curve is about right - above a datum point risk rises sharply. But to suggest that the datum point is represented by the speed limit is pretty absurd. The true datum point is constantly changing with weather, visibility, traffic levels and a host of other local conditions. Yes, driving too fast is dangerous. But you cannot usefully define 'too fast' without exacting reference to the immediate conditions.

Take for example the risk driving at 29mph past a school entrance at 3:45.

At 3:45pm with kids spilling off the pavement risk is high. Possibly way high. At 3:45am in the same place on the same day, the same speed will produce very low risk, and higher speeds may well be more appropriate.



Ah, yes Pareto. So you'll know that 80% of dangerous speeding is carried out by rather less than 20% of the population. Are your infernal cameras able to identify the real risk groups? No, of course they are not. You'll be catching low risk drivers most - exactly the groups that pay the lowest insurance premiums.

If you want to do something really useful, publish enough data so that we can see how combinations of contributory facts go together to creat real risks. For example, how many of the dangerous high speed crashes also have otherwise illegal drivers (uninsured, unlicenced, reckless, drunk, etc)?

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

OK, I'll ask you again. Do you know where those figures came from in the first place, ie the original paper in which they appeared?
If so, I'll be happy to point out to you exactly what the flaws are in that paper.
If not, you haven't done your homework - so it's pointless discussing it.

BTW I do have a copy of the paper in question.



Please explain it to us then, seeing you obviously know so much more than the rest of us.
Show us the reasoning behind it, so that we can all see.
Prove us wrong, so you can go back to doing what you do best without any further argument from us.

And leave out the puerile outbursts next time. They don't make you appear any more intelligent.

Cheers
Peter

But... Mr JJ, your three points make one massive assumption, namely that the motoring public of Derbyshire and Hertfordshire actually knew the stats beforehand.

It's most likely that they didn't. No deterrence, just better intelligence by Hertfordshire.

Now... Next year might be different!

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Who are, of course, one of the great generators of junk science. However...


Without the background data, citations etc it could just as well be a plot of hemlines v FTSE 100 Index.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

So what's the popular limit for drink driving blood/alcohol concentration limits then?

1. The current 80mg/100ml
2. A lower one at 50mg/100ml
3. Even lower at 20mg/100ml
4. Zero
5. No upper limit, with a self regulating system
6. Higher at say 160mg/100ml

Would you like to see random testing as in other European countries?

Pretty absurd?? Completely absurd!!

The speed limit varies from country to country. By Steve's figures, assuming no other factors change, this means you can DECREASE the risk simply by crossing the border from a country with a lower limit to one with a higher limit while maintaining the same speed.

Hang on - Steve's just put forward an argument that SUPPORTS increasing the speed limit.....

I suggest you submit this as a poll. In fact I'll do it for you. Hold on.....

Here you are... http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2758

From the (limited) statistical data that I have immediately to hand, it looks like the present 80mg/100ml is about right.

For example, the study by Kruger et al of the University of Wuerzburg (unusually for these type of studies) actually looked at drivers who had caused an accident and attempted to provide a comparison with the general driving population. They concluded:

"If no one with a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) greater than 80mg/100ml drove, a reduction of 96% would result. (NB this is a reduction of accidents where alcohol was involved, not the entire spectrum). Thus, if the legal limit for DUI in Germany (80mg/100ml) was an effective deterrent against driving with a higher BAC, this would mean that nearly everything that could be done to prevent alcohol-related accidents would have been accomplished. Thus countermeasures directed at those persons driving with BACs higher than 80mg/100ml can be expected to be most effective in reducing the number of accidents attributable to the effects of alcohol. In contrast, measures directed at drivers with BACs of less than 80mg/100ml cannot be very effective. At most, 4% of all accidents attributable to the effects of alcohol may be prevented."

So, it looks like the original threshold was the right one. Any reduction below this would merely be punitive, it would save no lives and only serve to satisfy the zealots.

So, I guess that JJ's mob will be pushing for a reduction..


Wouldn't bother me at all.. I thought that to all intents and purposes they are random anyway.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

But you just told us that (according to your graph) driving at the 80mg limit is not as bad as driving at 17% above the speed limit, which, at 30mph, is not even at the prosecution threshold.
So you tell us, JJ, Steve or whoever you are, what you think the limit should be.

Or would you like to see drink driving become as socially acceptable as exceeding the speed limit? I certainly don't.

Cheers
Peter

"Experts"

So-called expert "evidence" led to several miscarriages of justince ina series of recent cot death cases - which led to women being falsely imprisoned for several years before release.

"Experts" disagree with each other too. Wildy is an expert in her field - and has a professional reputation. I give talks on my specialism and am regarded as an "expert" by many in my profession. But we do not agree with the findings of other "experts" - and Wildy and self have knocked three verbal bells out of each other in a debate/seminar once. That's the problem - we research and find something else out which takes apart previous findings and actions and calls for a re-think.

We still do not know enough about scam effectiveness as it is not being measured to a standard norm to judge properly. All we know for certain is

1. Safe drivers are getting banned and have never had any accidents

2. Dangerous drivers are increasing and hit and run

3. Drink and drugged drivers are increasing. They are only really copped when they are brought in dead as well.

4. Dangerous drivers can drive tat or withing speed limits and still tailgate, never use mirrors, be sloppy at junctions - and never copped because of too much faith in a speed camera. Lot of accidents are caused by these people - and it is training which needs looking at.

5. Accident stats are increasing - and may not now be happening on roads which have now regressed to the mean - but looking at the web sites - the scam merchants are still citing accidents at these spots to justify. So either they are not being truthful (heaven forbid! ) or the scam ain't working at all. Take your pick!



My stat returns go into the reports of my NHS Trust's Brownie point system - and even I do not recognise myself here. It makes me look too good... and I know my patients actually die on me....(ER - they were actually dying before they met me...I can only help them last out a bit longer if I can treat them earlier - and the waiting list stuff - pure unadulterated spin on the part of someone )

I'm realistic and face facts - and I certainly do not hang on every word of an "expert"

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.