Safe Speed Forums

I think you should all visit http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/h2/h2.cgi ... iew&sort=U to apologise to Mr Bennell.

Why?

I don't ever remember anyone here suggesting it is a good idea to attempt to negotiate a bend at a speed above that which your vehicle is capable of.

I am sorry for Mr Bennell but I don't think a speed camera is the answer.

Unfortunately he is yet another victim of the current road policing (or rather lack of policing) policy.

How many have to die? Indeed that is the question asked daily by SafeSpeed, the ABD and other so called speedophiles.

Present policy is responsible for INCREASING the number and the proportion of excessive speed accidents. That's why we're fighting it.

See this page:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html

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

Also the fact that a road has a limit of x mph doesn't mean it is safe to take all bends on that road at x mph - but that belief tends to be encouraged by current policies.

_________________
"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

Looked at your site and if it's your campaign to get the goof of a driver who's not paying attention to the road banned then I'll support you.

Posing for a camera is for ponses and exhibitionists. Concentrating on the road is for drivers.

Thanks George. We'd very much like to identify and lobby for the best possible road safety policies. We don't believe that speed cameras have much of a role to play. Personally I think we now need to scrap the lot because of the paranoia, public confidence and distraction effects.

If we can raise average driver attention by a few percent we might get great benefits without the need to ban "ordinary" individuals. There's a group a the lower end of the driver quality scale who clearly need education or the attentions of the law urgently. But the bulk of the driving population are making a fair effort at driving safely and could do better with the right information and the right encouragement.

Just to make it crystal clear, we're not against speed limits or speed limit enforcement, but we think speed enforcement has grown far beyond useful levels and is actually causing a range of very dangerous side effects.

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

"but we think speed enforcement has grown far beyond useful levels "

So you think rules are there to be broken? If you drive above the speed limit expect to quite rightly be prosecuted. Do it too often and you lose your license and a menace is taken OFF the road.

Drive within the law and you have nothing to fear. - Simple or is it too simple for simple minds?

And yes I have driven emergency vehicles at high speed professionally to horrific accidents brought about by speeding.

The simple fact is that speed kills. Mr Bennell fortunately can live to tell the tale. So many others can't.

Soren, how does 'Speed Kills' carry any more of a useful message than 'Leaving your Home Kills' or 'Going to Work Kills'.

Moving around involves some kind of forward speed, and we all have to go to work or school whether we want to or not. By your logic you could slow all cars, trains, merchant shipping, and air freight down to 1mph, but then it would take a week to travel the country and six months to send goods to Britain from the USA.

I deleted Søren's post because it violated forum rules. In particular it was libellous.

Søren, please discuss the issues and refrain from personal attacks.

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

I feel very sorry for the innocent motorist who was injured by someone's failure to judge the speed at which his van could negotiate the bend. One question that needs to be asked is why the van driver made this error. Apparently he admitted to speeding regularly on that road and that he felt the limit was too low. Undoubtedly some limits are too low, but this road might not be one of them. Could it be that an unnecessarily low limit somewhere else has lead this person to treat all limits as too low? That's almost impossible to say of course, but we do know that for some reason the van driver was not prevented from driving too fast for the circumstances by Lancashire's camera forest.

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

George, the view you're expressing has little foundation in practical reality. We have 59% of vehicles exceeding the 30mph speed limit at sample sites.

Speeding behaviour isn't changing much (or at all depending on what figures you consider) despite a decade of speed cameras and very high levels of enforcement. But we do have a very serious stall in the long term expected reduction in roads fatalities.

We have to find how to make it better - enforcing the speed limit to ever greater degrees ISN'T WORKING. In fact I am personally CERTAIN that it is making the roads more dangerous. See these web pages:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/why.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/againstcameras.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html

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

That message is too simple for anyone, and a lie. On a lot of rundown little country badger tracks that are not wide enough for two cars to pass, it is legal to drive at 60mph. You would be within the law to drive at 60mph down them (at least as far as cameras are concerned anyway, you may be at risk of a dangerous driving charge). But at 31mph on some motorways and dual carriagways you are labelled a baby-killing speed maniac by camera purists.



That makes no sense. If the horrific accident was caused only by speeding, how could you speed and be safe? Either it was caused only by speeding, or it was caused by something else which made it different from your emergency vehicle. You can't have it both ways.

20mph kills 10%

40mph kills 90% (off the top of my head)

I know that some completely unscientific thought has suggested that if your driving at the higher speed you are likely to be concentrating more. (Presumably more than would be necessary to accomodate the higher hazard frequency).
The idea goes that this extra concentration would allow you to take off more of the free moving speed than the lower speed, hence a reduced speed impact, or more likelihood of taking avoiding action.
I've seen no evidence of this 'speed benefit'. I see plenty of Basingwerk's 'thumb in bum' brigade. There is a much greater chance of taking more effective avoiding action at the lower speed, so these theories really do not hold water.
I've also heard data to suggest that those caught speeding are nearly twice as likely to have been involved in an accident over the last three years.

I'd ask you to argue the counter theory for me please Zamzara. Are you suggesting that the faster you travel the less serious an accident is likely to be? - Are you saying that if you travel faster, you will have less accidents?

_________________
Drive in haste, repent at leisure.

Of course I'mn ot saying that. Nice strawman though.

What I am saying, is that at 70mph on a motorway you are no more likely to crash than at 30mph, as long as you know the basics of driving a car eg. to press the brake if the road ahead is not clear to continue. It is the alarming number of people who don't seem to understand even fundamental things like that I want off the road. It is more useful than just saying "speed kills speed kills speed kills"

Hi George...

Think you have met some of this family elsewhere You fell foul of Beagle once

By the way - you never did tell us why you really gave up driving..if indeed you did ....

How's the push biking going anyway - last time we heard of you - you were accusing all and sundry of knocking you off your bike .... You should try Ambleside .... great cycle lane there You would have to deranged to use it though!

Anyway back to Mr Bennell.....and Lancs....

Do not need to apologise to him - nor does any one of the regulars on here - as we do drive competently and debate ways to improve driving standards instead of focusing on speed alone as single accident cause, and we argue that speed cams resolve very little in terms of accident prevention. Lancs figures of year/year increases seem to back this up

Would argue that this van driver should apologise to all on this site if indeed he lurks here ....

Lancs as we all know has over 320 scams and virtually no police officers on patrol which leads to twazaks like the van driver ......

I note that the scam in question in three quarters of mile distant from this hazard. Typical scamerati - place the speed cam on the straight and set at zero tolerance (they send warning letter up to 10% +2, invite to course at 10% + 4 and issue FPN at above this - per "revised policy") but on 50 mph road and a straight - they know a significant number will be at least 10% + 4 and above - so scam earns its keep. I would have more respect for them if they moved the scam closer to the bend where there is a potential hazard.... and where all offences at this "danger site" automatically get some form of input training here.

Now - nobody on this site advocates "abolition of speed limit", nor does anyone advocate taking a bend too fast either. Personally if I were employing anyone earning living as driver - would insist that IAM pass was minimum porofessional qualification to drive any company car (my wife's firm has this as standard - but then multinational blue chip. Thought she was in labour last night - but she was just having a "bad night". Taken today off and got my best bedside on for her A right demanding "patient" )

Anyway back to our twazak who took the bend too quickly - they should have made him go on an improvement course in addition to his fine/points for driving like twazak as clearly he doees not understand first thing about cornering - and if he is indeed a lurker on this site or PH - I hope he reads and learns....

This van driver did not understand concept of tyre grip - if more acelerating/braking is involved - then there is less grip available for steering - leads to a skid.

More you brake/accelerate - less tyre grip - and you need the tyre grip to keep you on course. Demands on tyre grip at high speeds and in heavy vehicle such as a van are greater. Vehicle wants to keep in straight line - which is why as tyre grip is lost you drift right or left of your intended direction.

Basically - you need to be in right position, right gear and able to stop comfortably in the distance you can see to be clear (ie choosing a safe speed ) on approach - using every observation skill - trees, roadside furniture, road surface/markings, looking at the furthest point on the road which gives clearest view of road ahead - where one side of road appears to intersect with the other side That is the distance you can see to be clear for you to stop comfortably in - and you match your speed to apparent movement of that limit point.

But that is what - as an professional driver - he should have done.

Would a scam at this bend have prevented an accident though....even the speed limit itself may have been an inppropriate speed. Police are not ubiquitous either - but there is a chance that he may have been pulled up over poor driving and been more aware - if Lancs trafpol numbers were at levels of 10 years ago - when I used to see them patrolling all over the place....

That is what we need - more trafpols, better driving test and introduction of some kind of assessment to motivate pride in driving.

Agreed. We're talking about impact speeds. The following figures apply to child pedestrians in built up areas:

Injured: 14,000
Killed: 58
Proportion who died: 0.41%

Question: what was the average impact speed? Here's the graph:



The simple fact is that "road user response" is a far larger contributor to pedestrian fatalities than speed.



I'm saying that the side effects far outweight the benefits. I'm saying that we're now the slowest improving country in Europe - and we shouldn't be. I'm saying that excessive speed accidents are increasing and they shouldn't be. I'm saying that modern policy is fatally flawed, and it's killing us.

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

Do you ever drive at 40 mph, Søren (irrespective of what the speed limit is)?

If so, why, when it is potentially so dangerous?

Presumably because you believe that, in the circumstances, you have sufficient visibility to be extremely confident of stopping in time to avoid a collision?

And do you do that purely because someone has painted "40" (or a higher number) on a sign, or do you also apply your individual judgment to the situation?

Would it provide a worthwhile safety benefit to drive at 20 rather than 40 in those circumstances?

If so, why don't you do it?

If not, er, you've rather undermined your own argument.

_________________
"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

Zamzara wrote when referring to narrow lanes: "You would be within the law to drive at 60mph down them ...." she then went on to state that you would probably be done for dangerous driving - correct so I'm sorry your first statement was wrong, please edit it out.

With regard to my regular speeding to attend emergencies, it boils down to risk assesments. Firstly me and my coleagues were highly trained and regularly tested but we were expected to take certain risks if the consequences of NOT doing so was probable death due to late arrival at the scene.

Someone asked why I stopped driving - I saw too much and lost my nerve. I now have no stomach for driving and prefer my bicycle or public transport. I campaign for better fascitities for those of us who either can't or don't want to drive and I'm delighted to say that Nottingham is improving all the time with fewer cars in the centre and an excellent alternative to the north - a tram system. Soon it will extend to nearer my home and hopefully it will take even more cars off the roads.

... and kill and injure hundreds! Do you know the safety records for trams are horrendous, with significantly more people killed/injured per passenger carried than cars.

Not to mention the noise, pollution,.......

At last - we discover that you are a modal shift minded, socio-engineering, pseudo-environmentalist rather than someone concerned with safety.

The point I'm making is crash severity is related to impact speed.
All other aspects remain equal. We drive with the concentration required to drive at a certain speed, no more - no less. This provides us with no safety benefit at higher speed, simply greater chance of more serious injury.
I drive at a speed which I believe is correct for the circumstances. I concentrate on my driving. I also drive within the legal limit - posted limits, and within 10%+2 on motorways.
If we all drove at 20mph or less we would doubtless have less fatacs. But it's not a reasonable speed for todays society. You might agree that 70 is not sufficient for todays motoring. On a nice quiet motorway I'd probably agree with you. I think most motorway cameras are probably set at 85mph to take account of that. If not they should be. Let BiB take account of driving offences at lower speeds.
That's control pitched about right, in my book?
Enforcement at these levels shouldn't get anyone's pants in a twist.
=========================

Added by moderator:

Soren, I don't care how clever you think you are. I will not tolerate personal attacks. I especially will not tolerate personal attacks based on misquotes, misreports and statements taken deliberately out of context.

I have warned you before. If you wish to debate in here, then you are required to stick to the issues and avoid personal attacks. This is your final warning.

I have deleted a few lines from the end of this post.

Now you have to decide if you want to be a member of this community and stick to fair play or if you wish to be excluded.

_________________
Drive in haste, repent at leisure.