Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Apr 30, 2026 13:54

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Your thoughts please...
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 16:32 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 09:01
Posts: 1548
The scenario..

Driving home from work this afternoon down the A3 where there is a 50mph limit in force. The road was fairly clear, and the average speed of most drivers (myself included) was 60mph (it used to be a 70 zone until they installed Gatso's).

Anyhow, I see the Gatso in the distance, back off on the throttle and let the natural laws of physics slow me down to 50mph.

After I had been past the Gatso, it occured to me that I had actually had my eyes off the road for a good 5 seconds while monitoring my speedo and comparing my indicated speed with my distance to the approaching Gatso.

Now anything could have happened in those 5 seconds (fortunately nothing did), but does anybody here think that an excuse of "sorry mate, my attention to the road was reduced because of the Gatso" would actually work in a court of law?

And before anybody says "you should have been obeying the speed limit", aside from the fact that the conditions at the time meant that 60mph + was actually safe to do, there were drivers on the inside lane who were doing less than 50 and still braking for the Gatso.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 16:35 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 20:28
Posts: 1267
Location: not too far in front, not too far behind.
Gixxer wrote:
does anybody here think that an excuse of "sorry mate, my attention to the road was reduced because of the Gatso" would actually work in a court of law?


Would
"sorry mate, my attention on the road was reduced because there was a half naked woman on the side of the road"
work?

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 16:50 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 15:43
Posts: 2416
This the gatso on the crest southbound near the Tolworth Tower? That's a bad one for Pavlovian braking as there's so much street furniture people who don't know the things there tend to see it at the last minute. Better than it used to be though - it used to be hidden by a road sign :roll: . Another revenue maker, pure and simple.

Oh, to answer the question, not a hope I expect, but it doesn't alter the fact that presumably you'd have spent most or all of those few seconds with your eyes on the road if the gatso hadn't been there.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 16:54 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Gixxer wrote:
Now anything could have happened in those 5 seconds (fortunately nothing did), but does anybody here think that an excuse of "sorry mate, my attention to the road was reduced because of the Gatso" would actually work in a court of law?


It'd make an interesting civil case (e.g. compensation claim following a crash) where the standard of proof is: 'on a balance of probabilities'. Sounds potentially win-able to me.

I've been trying to come up with a scenario where the camera might contribute to 'reasonable doubt' in a criminal case. Not got there yet.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 16:55 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
handy wrote:
Would "sorry mate, my attention on the road was reduced because there was a half naked woman on the side of the road" work?

The difference is that the authorities don't deliberately put half naked women by the side of the road. Perhaps they should as an alternative to the "road safety gnome" :P

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 17:11 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
My attempt at an updated version of SMIDSY: SMIWWATS

“Sorry Mate I Was WAtching The Speedo”

I think we should try to find a new catchphrase (preferably better than mine), any ideas?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 17:34 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
PeterE wrote:
handy wrote:
Would "sorry mate, my attention on the road was reduced because there was a half naked woman on the side of the road" work?

The difference is that the authorities don't deliberately put half naked women by the side of the road. Perhaps they should as an alternative to the "road safety gnome" :P


You know, I'm positive they would slow the traffic. Do I smell a publicity stunt? It doesn't sound very Safe Speedish, but I'm sure you could get TV along.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 17:47 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339
handy wrote:
Would
"sorry mate, my attention on the road was reduced because there was a half naked woman on the side of the road"
work?


True, but you don't get fined £60 for failing to look at the woman.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 18:46 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4815
Location: Essex
smeggy wrote:
My attempt at an updated version of SMIDSY: SMIWWATS

“Sorry Mate I Was WAtching The Speedo”

I think we should try to find a new catchphrase (preferably better than mine), any ideas?


How about "Sorry Constable, Rightly Eyes Were Uploading Speedo"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 19:15 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 09:01
Posts: 1548
Gatsobait wrote:
This the gatso on the crest southbound near the Tolworth Tower?

That's the very one Gatsobait

Quote:
but it doesn't alter the fact that presumably you'd have spent most or all of those few seconds with your eyes on the road if the gatso hadn't been there.

I have driven past it 5 days a week for the last 2 years, it only dawned on me today exactly how much time I actually spend watching the speedo instead of what's going on in front of me (and that is quite a sobering thought).

I just find it hard to believe that whatever authority is responsible for that particular camera honestly believes it is enhancing road safety, because it isn't.


@Roger,
You have summed it up in one.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 19:46 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
[quote="GixxerI just find it hard to believe that whatever authority is responsible for that particular camera honestly believes it is enhancing road safety, because it isn't.
@Roger,
You have summed it up in one.[/quote]

Of late have started to see how much time i spend looking for cameras( now a sort of automatic function - and Mrs B when with me has started to watch out for them ) , checking my speedo and looking in mirror to see if i got a flash.
The "off road " time attention span horrifies me - SO MUCH THAT I HAVE LOOKED FOR WAYS TO REDUCE IT.

Now how can any item which distracts drivers attention ( by intention or other wise) claim to be termed "SAFETY"
Perhaps we need some publicity to show how much time a driver's attention is diverted by the "SO CALLED SAFETY ITEMS" and show the potential for disaster waiting to happen - in 5 secs a driver can travel xxx yards , without looking at the road ----WHY--- HE WAS MAKING SURE THE SPEED CAMERA DIDN'T FLASH HIM IUNDER THE LIMIT.

Sort of "prove that ALL cameras are calibrated" idea

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 19:50 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Gixxer wrote:
I have driven past it 5 days a week for the last 2 years, it only dawned on me today exactly how much time I actually spend watching the speedo instead of what's going on in front of me (and that is quite a sobering thought).


:yesyes:

Have you seen: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speedo.html ?

I was absolutely stunned when I realised just how much attention must be going on the speedo.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 09:15 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 15:43
Posts: 2416
Gixxer wrote:
I have driven past it 5 days a week for the last 2 years, it only dawned on me today exactly how much time I actually spend watching the speedo instead of what's going on in front of me (and that is quite a sobering thought).

I'll be doing likewise this evening :( set the cruise control at 50 when we get on at Shannon Corner and switch it off again once we're past that gatso. Frankly I felt that road was safer with the 70 limit as people didn't really exceed it a lot and often drove at the 60ish area that you mentioned, though having said that there are a few side roads that may be a little easier to get out of with slower traffic. Pity that most of it only goes slower at the actual gatso sites. :roll:

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:09 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 20:28
Posts: 1267
Location: not too far in front, not too far behind.
so ... and I admit that this is reductio ad absurdum ...

we are all agreed that any distraction for the driver is a bad thing

Isn't it a worry that the world has interesting things in it? Roads should obviously be sealed units, without any view except the road itself. I'm thinking tunnels here, obviously - plain concrete on both sides and above. Otherwise a driver may catch sight of a beautiful autumn morning, or a fresh snowfall, or someone they know walking along the pavement.

Whilst on the subject, cars shouldn't have radios or CD players. Also the driver should be sealed off from the rest of the vehicle in case a passenger foolishly attempted to talk to them.

Actually that last paragraph is a good idea, long journeys without hearing the kids screaming would be a great improvement!

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:00 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
Quote:
Isn't it a worry that the world has interesting things in it? Roads should obviously be sealed units, without any view except the road itself. I'm thinking tunnels here, obviously - plain concrete on both sides and above. Otherwise a driver may catch sight of a beautiful autumn morning, or a fresh snowfall, or someone they know walking along the pavement.


Don't let this get out for f***'s sake.

The powers that be will use this argument to propose putting deliberately distracting sights along the roadside. This will slow us down, and thus make us safer drivers :roll:

Joking apart, having grown up on the Dorset coast, the number of times I have seen cars full of oldies going along the coast road - one points to the sea view on the right, and as the driver looks, the car veers across the white line.

Luckily they were usually going extremely slowly (in fact the verring right was usually accompanied by a stab at the brakes) [sarcasm]so they weren't a danger to other road users... [/sarcasm]


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:45 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 15:43
Posts: 2416
handy wrote:
Isn't it a worry that the world has interesting things in it? Roads should obviously be sealed units, without any view except the road itself. I'm thinking tunnels here, obviously - plain concrete on both sides and above. Otherwise a driver may catch sight of a beautiful autumn morning, or a fresh snowfall, or someone they know walking along the pavement.

I know you're not being serious, but it has to be remembered that removing all stimuli isn't a good thing either. No, we don't want drivers to be distracted from the task at hand, but neither do we want them disengaged. But screaming kids I do agree with. High time someone developed a volume control for children. :)

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:56 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 14:23
Posts: 23
Gatsobait wrote:
High time someone developed a volume control for children. :)

Not a volume control as such, more of a mute button - Duct tape.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 13:07 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
handy wrote:
so ... and I admit that this is reductio ad absurdum ...

we are all agreed that any distraction for the driver is a bad thing

Isn't it a worry that the world has interesting things in it? Roads should obviously be sealed units, without any view except the road itself. I'm thinking tunnels here, obviously - plain concrete on both sides and above. Otherwise a driver may catch sight of a beautiful autumn morning, or a fresh snowfall, or someone they know walking along the pavement.

Whilst on the subject, cars shouldn't have radios or CD players. Also the driver should be sealed off from the rest of the vehicle in case a passenger foolishly attempted to talk to them.

Actually that last paragraph is a good idea, long journeys without hearing the kids screaming would be a great improvement!


The sentiment is correct, but the position is an absurd extreme. As you suggested.

In cases like this, I think we should monitor the status quo and make sure that changes introduced to the road safety system are evidence based and especially check very carefully what the overall effects (including side effects) are likely to be.

The golden trick to sustainable road safety improvement is 'constant nudging' in the right direction. (Regular readers will know that I believe speed cameras have given it an almighty shove in the wrong direction.)

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 09:47 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
botach wrote:
Perhaps we need some publicity to show how much time a driver's attention is diverted by the "SO CALLED SAFETY ITEMS" and show the potential for disaster waiting to happen - in 5 secs a driver can travel xxx yards , without looking at the road ----WHY--- HE WAS MAKING SURE THE SPEED CAMERA DIDN'T FLASH HIM IUNDER THE LIMIT.


How about this for an idea... A THINK! style advert.

In car view showing the road ahead (an urban 40 limit maybe with pavements either side), regular momentary glances to the speed limit signs and periodic view of the mirrors and speedo (i.e. simulate correct driver observaion). Then show a scamera sign followed by a yellow box 200 yards or so in the distance. The view is then focussed on the speedo as the car presumably approaches the camera. Then BANG! The camera looks up to see a smashed windscreen and a child laying on the bonnet. Then fade to black and the caption 'THINK! what your safety policy is ACTUALLY doing to our roads....' Fade to SafeSpeed logo.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:34 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 09:44
Posts: 516
Location: Swindon, the home of the Magic Roundabout and no traffic planning
Sixy_the_red wrote:
botach wrote:
Perhaps we need some publicity to show how much time a driver's attention is diverted by the "SO CALLED SAFETY ITEMS" and show the potential for disaster waiting to happen - in 5 secs a driver can travel xxx yards , without looking at the road ----WHY--- HE WAS MAKING SURE THE SPEED CAMERA DIDN'T FLASH HIM IUNDER THE LIMIT.


How about this for an idea... A THINK! style advert.

In car view showing the road ahead (an urban 40 limit maybe with pavements either side), regular momentary glances to the speed limit signs and periodic view of the mirrors and speedo (i.e. simulate correct driver observaion). Then show a scamera sign followed by a yellow box 200 yards or so in the distance. The view is then focussed on the speedo as the car presumably approaches the camera. Then BANG! The camera looks up to see a smashed windscreen and a child laying on the bonnet. Then fade to black and the caption 'THINK! what your safety policy is ACTUALLY doing to our roads....' Fade to SafeSpeed logo.


I like it.

It constantly horrifies me how much our attention is being forced away from actually watching the road.

Take Berlin Cushions for example - Sixy - you know Swindon has a love affair with these....I find that you are spending so much time lining yourself up with them so your arse doesn't go flying through the top of your head (at 20mph), you completely loose your peripheral vision. The peripheral vision is the tool that you use to watch for hazards, esp children etc. Therefore, you don't see the hazards so easily.

I like your idea - and this could be another theme on it...showing a car going through traffic calming, and simulate a tunnel vision effect, then the impact because the driver didn't see the hazard

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.033s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]