Safe Speed Forums

Er - as far as alcohol in blood goes - Mad Doc's the expert - there is a post of his lurking somewhere in the archives when we looked at dirink driving with regard to the Mellamby Effect.

Mad Doc expalined the dangers of booze from a medical stance - - and I gave the legal situation at the time. I gather the site "how stuff works" - (link on the PC's lunch box trhread courtesy of Ern) ) explains how the breathalysers work.

As the law stands - and you can check this out in any copy of Blackstones for police and lawyers in a good booksellers professional section (and I have posted this previously) but if the driver is in hopsital - we have to seek permission form doctor treating and any test has to be agreed and supervised by two doctors per s7A and s 9 of the Road |Traffic Act (also viewable on line )

Besides most who suspect they are over the limit drive suspiciously to the speed limit but there is a slight weave which alerts us.



Rule of thumb - never drink on empty stomach and never after 11 pm if you are driving in the normal rush hour. Body is slower at excreting the excesss whilst we sleep .. per Mad Doc and medical opoinion in general.

But when we investigate any incident - we look at the tyre marks on the road, age of vehicle, condition of vehicle as well as the condition or all parties involved - and we have been known to charge the driver of the car who was not 100% to blame. for the collision. Tought justice perhaps - but then the drink just may have slowed his reaction and split seconds can determine an outcome.

But - nationally - drin drive incidents are beginning to increase again. As are those involving drugged impaired ones....

_________________
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.

Please do. I believe I'm waiting for an answer to the last few lines of this post: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewt ... 8441#68441

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

Arggh, not there again!!!

More seriously...

This may have been lost in the noise, but I posted this:



Further to that, one has to consider how the causation factors came about. For instance, why to a driver FTGW? Why did they have to brake suddenly? Why did they lose control of their vehicle?

Out of interest, I am under the impression you work from data summary collated collected from accident reports, rather than the accidents reports themselves. Is this impression correct?

Whilst that was an interesting read - it presumably is somewhat easier to tell if a driver was driving under the influence preceding an accident that it is to determine whether a driver is speeding preceeding the accident?



Indeed, and this is troubling, and we do need more police on the road to deal with these this and other issues (speed included).

Don't get me wrong - speed cameras are not a substitute for policing. Thats not to say they don't have their uses.

Whilst I can see some merits in what you're saying, I have to draw the line at this one. LA's should have absolutely no part in setting speed limits.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

We have tried to get a message across of a need to evaluate a drive each time - and to try to consider how each action - however small - affects the other road user.

Once upon a time - when people were less isolate and discussing this over a pint (not driving) or on the phone instead of via e-mail and rather nonnymous chat rooms - we obeserved those social niceties of polite and calm behaviour. Now - people tear out their hair if the mouse click does not deliver immediately - and I think this impatience is sadly overspilling into other areas of life.



I suggest you come up here and speed - People pulled here do not forget what we say to them in a hurry! We do not always issue fines either - but we are constantly appraising our policy and seeking to reduce our incidents as a constant.



The small risks though - involve underestimating the speed of a car approiaching at a legal speed, assuming the cyclist will turn left or underestimating his speed because he is using his own energy to power his bike. You would be amazed at the number of people who still think a bike is as slow as the heavy 1950s steel three-gear traditional.

Have one of these - it's like a shire horse - sturdy, strong - plods along....and reliable. Does not quite go with my yellow leggings though... and racy Giro helmet ...and super trendy and stylish Illuminite top.....



a LOT... Look at their stats - you posted so yourself three pages ago ..

Of course it would be legally doable - if the EU issued a directive to bring us into line....




Eh?

London in the Blitz.. my father was a Policeman based down there during the war. Various Aunts and Uncles tell me about Salford, Manchester, Liverpool, Preston, Nottingham, Coventry, Birmingham, Bolton, Dover (and visit the exhibition at Dover Castle - that'll tell you what Dover suffered during WW2) . Britain suffered badly during the Blitz and all archives show this for fact.

But what about the quaint towns in the uintouched Harz and other areas of Germany - the one to which they sent their evacuee kids... these medieval towns have bike lanes

Try riding a bike down from Strasbourg - through the wine road to Colmar and Riquewihr - and you will have one heck of a pleasant surprise!

Bavaria has less provision as does Dresden - but even so - they appear to have less incidents on basis that cyclists and pedestrians are fined if they misbehave.



Darlington has a grant - a beacon town. Most of its plans can be applied anywhere.

Other areas make use of disused rail lines - landscaping and making them a pleasant cross country short cut.

Case of planning properly.



Of course - and there are some really daft ones.

_________________
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.

Well, since Highway Authorities are responsible for everything else to do with the roads they have to be involved in the process somewhere. My view is that they should be required to adhere to centrally-set guidelines, as they were before 1991, but someone on the ground has to assess roads for speed limits, and if HAs don't do so, then you would end up creating a further tier of bureaucracy. Also the Highway Authority is responsible for erecting and maintaining the signs.

_________________
"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

I make that comment based upon experiences where I live. The LA has totally buggered up our town centre with a new road system, put in place cashcams where they're not needed, caused huge amounts of artificial congestion and other general wastages of my council tax money, so I think they are the ones LEAST qualified to set speed limits!

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Not always. For example - if we have someone who has a a cannabis habit or is a seasoned drinker whose body has adjusted body chemicals to cope with the substances - not always possible to tell if a top up prior to the incident caused it.

We can usually calculate speed from impact, skid marks, injuries, "flight" of the hit car following a collision - and of course what people tell us - and whilst their accounts may differ - an accord of what they saw runs through the various accounts.



But that's the problem - they are not siting them where they should be - and our one fixed cam is moved around to where it's required. Whether or not it cops anyone... you may think so - I cannot (cough) possibly comment (cough - ahem )

_________________
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.

Just a quick reply to this one, I haven't ignored you In Gear, I just haven't got time to go through all that at the moment



I think what Peter is saying is broadly fair - however, there would have to be a certain amount of flexibility in the guidelines. I don't think a situation where a DfT authorisation would be required where a speed limit doesn't quite meet guidelines but a mitigating factor warrants the limit would be helpful.

I'd also suggest you'd still end up with some limits which are apparantly unwarranted in the driver's eyes.



The thing is, someone else will have an opinion that they're not doing enough about speeding traffic, "rat running" down their street and so on. Being a traffic engineer is not unlike being a football manager, everyone knows how to do your job better than you.

I think people need to understand the situation the engineers are in better, and be a bit more tolerant and open-minded when it comes to things which may cause some inconvenience to the complainant.

As an aside, I'd be interested to know where you live is.

Again, I hear what you're saying, but complaints about "rat-running" are only attempts to cure the symptom and not the root cause. Drivers where I live wouldn't need to use "rat-runs" if the LA hadn't imposed all this artificial congestion. I am an extremely tolerant person, but not when it comes to problems which have arisen out of LA's buggering things up!

I live near to West Bromwich... Comes under Sandwell LA...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

It simply isn't good enough to dismiss the best data we have. If two datasets, or a dataset and other analysis are in clear conflict, that's one thing. But to dismiss a huge body of data that is disparate in method, yet self similar in conclusion is nothing less than wrong.

Anyway, for the sake of interest and understanding, perhaps you would be kind enough to suspend your claimed disbelief and answer the question, even if hypothetically.

Have you read TRL323? The new contributory factors system is based on it, and it is the best system I've seen. The first year's data has now been collected, but DfT does not expect to publish results from it until September or so.



Damn right. Crashes causation is multi-layered and multi factorial. At the 'most originating' level there's almost always a simple driver failure in the psychological domain.

For example, many crashes involving 'excessive speed' are actually hazard perception or judgement failures leading a driver to fail to slow down when necessary.



Not at all. My analysis is mainly system level analysis with any (and all) data I can get hold of plugged in to the system to see where it fits. I certainly haven't based any conclusions on any one data or information source.

These days I wear the advocate's hat more tha the analyst's hat - that's because I have worn the analyst's hat for long enough to fit all available information on the system into a well understood pattern. You might say that I've been doing the 'road safety jigsaw' for 20 years, on and off - and on for 5 years straight. The jigsaw says something entirely different to what the government is saying - In fact I don't they can tell sea from sky (a common problem with jigsaws).

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

Just catching up after a week away. A lengthy thread that took some wading through.

I'd like to ask ndp what driving experience and qualifications he has? And what knowledge is implied by the description "traffic engineer"?

I'd like to ask ndp whether (and why), in his opinion, a "traffic engineer" without extensive experience and/or advanced driver qualification is more capable of making sound decisions about safe driving practice than a highly experienced and/or advanced driver?

If ndp possesses such experience and/or qualifications, in addition to his training as a traffic engineer, I'd like to know.

I don't doubt that the skills and knowledge of traffic engineers are a necessary part of the road safety picture, but I would hope and expect that the engineering perspective is informed by input from experienced/advanced drivers.

In my estimation, that's the greatest single loss that has allowed policy to run off the rails - because no, there's very little involvement from skilled drivers and the best practice advice that they can offer these days.

And nowhere is this loss greater than at Ministry/'Department' level. Hendon, for example used to be a highly influential consultee, but such advice is no longer sought.

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

Agreed



Indeed - but I'm not sure what that has to do with my point.



Its far from limited to that though.




But then theres the politically feasibility too. I suspect the idea of 9 year old children being prosecuted for "jaywalking" would attract howls of nanny state from all sides.

That and I wouldn't want a situation where motorists assume pedestrians will obey signals, which is a dangerous situation.

I agree pedestrians should be expected to take responsibility. I'm not sure a jay walking law would do much in this regard.

I trust such a law would be enforced with the discretion people want when it comes to speed limits.




But often not as badly as the continental cities.

Anyhow, this is besides the point. We are where we are.



A grant is one thing - useful facilities on the ground are quite another.



The thing is these often don't go to places where people want to go, which have grown up around the roads.

It should also be noted that cyclists are perfectly entitled to ride on the road, and that motorists should be expected to show the appropriate caution and courtesy around cyclists. Too many expect cyclists to be off the road.




Ah, OK.



Has to do with excess. Sometimes the repair is less than the excess charge or a marginal difference. Hence the parties will agree to treat knock for knock without filling in forms and drawing diagrams for something which really needs a T-cut job and not much else.

If one or other repair or both are costly - then makes sense to deal vial the insurers. [/quote]

Indeed - but as a result alot of accidents are never recorded.




Prone to micro-climates as well. Like Stocksbridge - poor design has led to a number of lethal blackspots - but having said that - [i] those cameras are nowehere near the blackspots and certianly not near the corssroads , footpath crossings and priovate accesses - and know this as travel on that road at least once per year..to a family do![/quote]

Well the thing is with roads like the A14 is that pretty much the entire route has hazards like private accesses etc. As a result you need to treat the whole route.



But then the lowest tolerance within guidlines is +5mph in 30mph limit - so cameras do provide discretion in that sense.



Well yes. But people need to have some patience - there are some perfectly valid limits out there which may seem a bit daft from the drivers POV.

How have they imposed "artifical congestion"?

As for rat running, alot of people will do it jump a queue at traffic signals, for instance. Only has to be 6 or 7 queuing, and some people will try to get to the front. It doesn't even necessarily gain them any time - its a perception thing (not unlike those drivers who change into the apparantly faster lane during motorway congestion).

Then theres perceived problems which residents and councillors want dealing with.

quote]

Best data you have. Not the same thing.




Quite simply, the contributory factors on the accident report are only of very limited use, for the reasons I have aalready stated. Its just the attending officers opinion, some will be more willing to speculate than others, some will be more conservative than others, alot don't cite any contributory factors at all.



See above.



Damn right. Crashes causation is multi-layered and multi factorial. At the 'most originating' level there's almost always a simple driver failure in the psychological domain.

For example, many crashes involving 'excessive speed' are actually hazard perception or judgement failures leading a driver to fail to slow down when necessary[/quote]

And one has to ask the question of why they failed in this regard.



You've missed my point.

The reason I ask if you have access (or indeed ever seen) a completed police accident report is because I think it is important to understand the nature of the data one is trying to analyse, and I think your faith in the contributary factor reporting is misplaced, and wouldn't be so if you had access to the reports from which everything else is generated.

Why the quotes?



Did I say they did?

I'd like to ask observer (and indeed everyone here) why they think that (if they think that) a driver with zero traffic engineering experience, zero traffic engineering training, no knowledge of guidance, successful practice, no means of consulting with other traffic engineers, less data, and a vested interest feels that they know how to engineer the roads (and that includes the setting of speed limits).

It's not the job of motorists to decide how to engineer the roads, nor is it the job of the traffic engineer to tell people how to drive. The job of the traffic engineer is to provide the legal mechanisms, road layouts, signs and markings necessary to ensure the safe and efficient movement of people and goods from one place to another on the roads, within the terms set out by the democratic process.



Indeed, so I'm more than happy to take the advice of the IAM and RoSPA[/url]

But I would suggest that as traffic engineers are responsible for designing roads that are used by drivers (and other road users) it is important for them to have an understanding of the psychology of drivers. Experience of driving and taking advanced training will help in that.

I have no technical expertise in designing cars, but if I have to drive a car that isn't very good, I'm entitled to say so, and indeed vote with my wallet by not buying one. Likewise I have no technical expertise in the design of railway rolling stock, or the setting of timetables, but if a railway company provides a poor service with uncomfortable trains I am fully entitled to complain about it.

Traffic engineers are not gods, they are people providing a service to the public, and if the public do not like that service they have the right to complain about it, and a response of "we are experts, we know better" is deeply patronising. Don't forget we pay your wages.

_________________
"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

In true tradition, I'd just like to claim post 400 in this epic