Safe Speed Forums

yes i drive my personal car without constantly checking my speedo within the limit.

whilst driving the SCP van i would say i am more aware of my speed bigger engine, diesal etc, the effect my driving has on others, the use of indicators

I propose that if the answer is NO, (and i suspect that NO is THE only correct answer)you dont NEED a speedo to drive safely, then i further propose you dont NEED speed limits, as everyone ( braindead loons excepted) will set a SAFE speed for the conditions in force at the time theyre travelling.

I don't believe people who think they can gauge their speed without checking their speedo - the human mind is easily tricked.

yes i drive my personal car without constantly checking my speedo within the limit.

whilst driving the SCP van i would say i am more aware of my speed bigger engine, diesal etc, the effect my driving has on others, the use of indicators

If that's the case, maybe all pdestrians should wear crash helmets? After all, we're all serious about casualty reduction here aren't we?

I must have said this before but we seem to walk around shopping centres without having accidents and the last time I looked I didn't have a speedo fitted!

Is there not a part of the Civil Engineering discipline that would explain this?

How can you possibly need a speedo to drive safely?

If you need a speedo as some form of crutch to help you drive at an appropriate speed then quite frankly you shouldn't be driving.

Well that is because the vast majority of the traffic will be doing 3 to 4 mph with almost none exceeding this speed. So all traffic is going at a well controlled speed with almost nothing exceeding the speed limit (lets call the human walking speed the speed limit).
The traffic in a shopping centre is to all intents and purposes not even controlled in lanes but as the expected speed is the average speed and also the maximum speed (just about) then there are very few collisions, when there are they are far from serious.
Now consider what happens when someone runs through a shopping centre, they come very close to and even do collide or at least cause many pedestrians to veer from their normal track. When they do veer they don't often cause other collisions because the rest of the traffic is travelling at the same speed. When collisions do occur after avoiding action they are minor because there is very little differential speed offered into the collision.
Now lets take 2 sprinters in the shopping centre, more risk of collision, more veering shoppers so more risk of potential accidents all because there are more shoppers travelling at unexpected and faster speeds. More alarmingly there are limit abiding shoppers having to take avoiding action and because there are more shoppers above the speed limit there is potential for more differential speeds and injury to limit compliant shoppers. Then of course you could get 2 sprinters colliding as they overtake, we all know that is a common event with rather serious consequences.
I could go on and on with this but you have just demonstrated in your misconceived question exactly why a "safespeed" method is not satisfactory nor safe for use on the roads or in a shopping centre for that matter.
Is there not a part of the Civil Engineering discipline that would explain this?
Well done and thanks for the opportunity.

Well that is because the vast majority of the traffic will be doing 3 to 4 mph with almost none exceeding this speed. So all traffic is going at a well controlled speed with almost nothing exceeding the speed limit (lets call the human walking speed the speed limit)."


YES! Why not? An arbitrarily imposed speed limit with little scientific foundation! Great idea! In fact, to make it a bit more like real life, what you need to do is not so much impose your arbitrary limit as being the maximum speed at which (say) 85% of pedestrians walk but set it somewhat slower so that everyone is massively inconvenienced for no real discernible benefit in safety!


"The traffic in a shopping centre is to all intents and purposes not even controlled in lanes but as the expected speed is the average speed and also the maximum speed (just about) then there are very few collisions, when there are they are far from serious."


Yup! Excellent stuff! Whatever you do, don't focus your attemps at casualty reduction on the real problems (despite the fact that you are well aware of them as you have just said) Focus instead on making them slow down rather than walk in a more sensible manner to start with!


"Now consider what happens when someone runs through a shopping centre, they come very close to and even do collide or at least cause many pedestrians to veer from their normal track. When they do veer they don't often cause other collisions because the rest of the traffic is travelling at the same speed. When collisions do occur after avoiding action they are minor because there is very little differential speed offered into the collision."



This is just "word salad" - it doesn't even make sense. First you're saying how terrible it would be if someone went faster than everyone else and then you're not saying its that much of a problem because veryone is going at the same speed!



"Now lets take 2 sprinters in the shopping centre, more risk of collision, more veering shoppers so more risk of potential accidents all because there are more shoppers travelling at unexpected and faster speeds. "


I thought there were only 2 reckless fools exceeding the speed limit a minute ago - now they're all at it -crazy damned fools!


"More alarmingly there are limit abiding shoppers having to take avoiding action and because there are more shoppers above the speed limit there is potential for more differential speeds and injury to limit compliant shoppers. Then of course you could get 2 sprinters colliding as they overtake, we all know that is a common event with rather serious consequences.
I could go on and on with this but you have just demonstrated in your misconceived question exactly why a "safespeed" method is not satisfactory nor safe for use on the roads or in a shopping centre for that matter."


Whereas your brilliant bit of thinking is likely to win a Nobel prize for road safety? I think not!

"Is there not a part of the Civil Engineering discipline that would explain this?"


If there is, you probably wouldn't understand!



"Well done and thanks for the opportunity.