Safe Speed Forums

I DO think it's a conspiracy of sorts - a conspiracy of stupidity. See:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/conspiracy.html



No, this isn't right. Firstly they both have to start at the same time. Secondly they aren't linear, with the growth in camera convictions now doubling every three years. And thirdly we have a series of observations that make it possible for the correlation to be causal.

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

No. I doubt the y scale on that particular graph. I'm perfectly happy with the shapes of the curves.



I'm not aware of any research that directly answers your question. Given the scarceness of fatal acidents and the other common contributory factors I have strong doubts that any such reseach would be helpful. For example, many high speed fatal accidents involve a comon cause for the speed and the crash, including drunk and unlicenced driving, stolen cars and so on. Just because a joyrider crashes at 90mph in town is no reason to slow traffic on the bypass from 80mph to 70mph.



I'm not playing that game. Why don't you just stick to the issues and debate like an adult, avoiding ad hominem attacks?



It's a trivial calculation based on time exposed to danger. I carried it out a few years ago, but I don't have the calculations to hand. Try it for yourself.

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

My question to you is, why are you spending long periods of time in the outside lane? Surely if you reduced the amount of time you spend in the outside lane, the less likely you are to fall 'victim' to 'speeders'.
If you're passing a car doing 65mph in the middle lane then:

1) What's he doing in the middle lane at 65 in the first place?
2) Why bother to pass him if you only intend going 5mph faster?

And if you do, and pass him whilst not exceeding the speed limit, your speed differential will be 5mph or less. Which means:

1) If you allow a 2 second gap both behind and in front of him, your total overtake time will be more than a minute, or more than a mile in terms of distance. Which means that you are occupying the outside lane for this time and distance.

2) You're adjacent to the the other car for around 4 seconds - that's far longer than it would take for him to come over into your lane and crash into you if something went wrong - you're creating unnecessary danger for yourself.

3) You appear to misunderstand the reasons for a 2-second gap, so there's no need to wait so long after passing before pulling in (or, indeed, before the overtake) - the gap will quickly grow to 2 seconds again.

4) If, on the other hand, you briefly sped up to 80mph, and allowed a 1 second gap before and after (which would grow to a 2 second gap within seconds) you would only be occupying the outside lane for about 10 seconds.

I would suggest that you first look at what's wrong with your own driving.

I concur wholeheartedly and agree your maths. Much safer to overtake at brisk 15 mph differential and 1 second gap to pull out and pull back in is fine.

I doubt that sorryone is able to see past the end of his nose on this, judging by the drivel he's posted up until now.

There are nutters who think they are experts, and mediocre drivers who think they are experts, and average drivers who think they are experts. In fact, there are very few drivers at all (especially amongst guys) who don’t think they are experts! On very rare occasions, you may get to share the road with actual decent drivers, but if anyone has to announce to the world that they are a good driver, it’s a safe bet they are an insecure guy in denial. Any true expert would obey the agreed protocols, i.e. stick to the limit. Drivers who don’t are not experts, they are law breakers, and there is no room on the roads for mixing drivers who obey the agreed protocols and drivers who don’t.

_________________
I stole this .sig

basingwerk wrote :


Some pretty muddled logic there as usual basingwerk

Drivers who don't stick to the speed limit may be expert or may not be. The limit is simply an arbitrary numeric level.

The protocols are certainly not agreed, they are imposed; increasingly without agreement and sometimes against the opinion of the traffic police. Even you might consider the police expert and you yourself have agreed that there are occasions when these experts should disregard the speed limit.
[/b]

Riggers - the BiB in question.... We got flamed on there. Wildy started it - a certain BiB is fair game to her on there. And I got quite cross with this particular probationer over some thread or other where he had no sympathy for a death in serious incident. OK - the biker behaved like an idiot and made a mistake but the young guy's take was just a little immature - so I passed comment - and was "condescending as hell" :rolleyes:. On the thread in question (IG read that thread which probably spurred him to initiate one on similar lines) - the same probationer BiB (who is just a wee bit sensitive) wrote that he nearly rear ended someone who panic braked on him when she heard an ambulance. - Well .... WildCat decided to "play up the probationer BiB" by suggesting he was far too close and failed to anticipate .... (and got some stick over it as all the BiBs seemed to gang up on her, backing up the probationer who appeared to change his story a bit - and I then joined in to protect and cover her back so to speak ... - the chap (BIB) has since deleted the offensive stuff - but it was not very nice..especially since he knew her history.

Another reason why I got into bother ---- I said we all gents on here ..... which is perfectly true. Of course we argue against "basingwerk", "Chumps" et al - but we stilll stay reasonable and we still respect each other even if we disagree. Heck - I actually like reading "basingwerk's essays and he is a challenge.... I will make him agree with us ...toa point eventually ...... he is already referring to scameras and IG has got him to acknowledge he is "of some value!"

As for "Soren" - again - we need the other point of view to argue against....if he can at least see the other side and respect idea that speed cams are not all they are cracked up to be - then there has been some progress made .....



Cheers mate!

Think IG was being the "cousin" and was in "blood is thicker than water" mode here. We are a close family on each side.... and unusual because of "petrolheadedness" and IAM memberships.

And yes - I do know exactly what you mean about the selfish society which appears to be developing.

It is a human failing and has been displayed in each generation. Our problem is that we have technology but have not really evolved at same pace ..... hence the modern problems which we really have to address to survive...

Oh Goody! You're going to stay off the road, then?
But, seriously, I really hope that you never find yourself in the wrong place on the road at the wrong time - you'll find out very quickly that your blind faith in speed limits isn't going to save your skin - hopefully you'll live to tell the tale.
The drivers least likely to have accidents are not necessarily those who stick to the rules all the time - or even most of the time, it's immaterial.
Nor are they the most skilful drivers - or those who think they are.
No, the drivers least likely to have accidents are those who drive at all times according to conditions and continually scan for hazards, usually spotting them and acting accordingly before they become actual dangers.
But even these drivers are being compromised by the 'speed limits are holy' crowd, having to spend more and more of their energies trying to keep down to the speed of the car in front.

That's a bit harsh!


What would travelling at a higher speed do to aid the situation?


Thay must have less chance of collision is they are observing a code of conduct on the road that is accepted and published to all when compared to those drivers that observe their own code.


But this sort of driver, especially the ones that are using excess or excessive speeds are coming into conflict and creating this conflict with those drivers that are observing the published code of practice.


Well why not go the same speed as the car in front until you can pass. If the car in front is travelling at the limit imposed by the code of practice you have no right to pass so chill out, don't pass. They are right, you are quite simply in the wrong!

_________________
It's Champion Man

Back in a couple of weeks if I'm welcome.

_________________
Drive in haste, repent at leisure.

OK, let's try an experiment.

Firstly, would you agree on the following:

A driver who always adjusts their speed according to conditions to such a speed from which they can always stop within the distance they can see to be clear, will have effectively eliminated speed as a factor in the risk of collision.

Any accidents they may still have will have nothing to do with speed, those accidents will occur no matter what their speed is.

Are you with me so far?

When you have replied, I will go to the next step of the experiment.
BTW This is NOT a trick.

Regards
Peter

Don't be ridiculous. Being able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear now does not mean that it will remain clear until you have passed that distance, i.e. this principle does not account for events subsequent to seeing the clear distance. Only by explicitly stating that does this rule make any sense at all.

But there is worse - before you drive over it, it is impossible to hold all the information relevant to safety about the stretch you are about to drive over! It is only by driving over the stretch that it is possible to prove it is safe enough to drive over! In this case, the only absolutely safe course of action is not to drive over it at all!

All this is because of this ridiculous strategy, that is plastered everywhere on this site and has no meaning. Oscar Wilde once said that he was "prevented from coming in consequence of a subsequent engagement". He was being amusing, but I sense that you guys actually believe this nonsense.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Somewhere near the front page of this site I think Paul does take this essential further step into account in his "safe speed rule", as indeed should all drivers.

Oh yes, lets take the absolute logic proof to it's absolute conclusion shall we? If I have an apple tree with 500 apples on it, I only know for sure that gravity will make each apple fall downwards when it actually does so. Even if 499 apples should do so, it is impossible to predict the actions of the 500th, right?

Equally valid, anyway!

Quite where this fatuous argument takes road safety I don't know...

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Fundamentally, JT, it takes us to the conclusion that you can't predict a safe speed based on what you see up ahead.

_________________
I stole this .sig

To be more accurate, I'd say it takes us to the conclusion that you can't predict anything.

Somewhere down the line you have to make predictions based on observation and past experience. It may not pass your "absolute proof" test, but as a system it does work, which can be clearly demonstrated by the fact that experienced drivers crash less than inexperienced ones.

Unless of course you think it is just because they speed less...

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

To be more accurate, I'd say it takes us to the conclusion that you can't predict anything[/quote]

Yes, even if SafeSpeed's rule includes some caveat about subsequent events, it is invalid if you can't predict anything. The absolute top limit provides minimal safety net for all drivers in this respect. It also allows drivers with similar abilities to interact at similar speeds on the same road system.

_________________
I stole this .sig

You really don't think further than the tip of your nose, do you?
Implicit in this rule, and what is understood by it, is the distance which you can see will be clear until you've passed it.
This is easy to see. At 60mph, even the exaggerated stopping distance given in the Highway Code (1960 brakes) is 73 metres. You will cover this distance in 2.75 seconds at 60mph.
If you're not sure that something, or someone is not going to invade this space within that time, you're going too fast. And it really doesn't take a great deal of skill to spot potential hazards in that time and distance, nor does it take perfect eyesight. And at urban speeds, the distances and times involved are much less.
If you can't see that, then you really shouldn't be on the road - because you're a danger to yourself and others.



That 'ridiculous' strategy actually comes from, and is plastered all over, the book "Roadcraft" - the police driving handbook.
I'm surprised you consider yourself such an expert, when you evidently haven't read it.

Once you inject sense, reason and probability into it, it's an almost perfect rule.

Obviously we can't allow for James T Kirk materialising at an inconvenient location, but then that isn't very likely is it?

I can count the number of "unexpectable" events in my last 20 years of driving on the fingers of one hand. Even then I've been well managed and lucky enough to have a margin for error.

Your underlying assumption seems to be that other road users appear from nowhere. Let me assure you that they can't do that.

On the other hand if one regularly exceeds the safe speed for a bend it's not long at all before you have serious incidents. I know this because a few times each year I have to take action (calm action, not emergency action) to avoid conflict with an obstruction hidden around a bend.

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

When people say that, in virtually every case it means that they weren't paying attention.

Regards
Peter

Absolutely. The word: "suddenly" is usually the give-away.

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