Safe Speed Forums

In a way it is a 'binary' situation. At any given instant a driver will be driving to a speed that is one of:

1) As fast as the vehicle will comfortably go. (Frequently applies during moving off, speed limited HGVs, larger slower vehicles climbing hills and overtaking).

2) A speed that is believed to be legal.

3) A speed that is judged to be appropriate.

Seems to me that we don't need to care about 1 (for the purposes of this discussion). So at any given instant any driver will be either chosing speed for legal or safety reasons. Since 2) and 3) judgements use totally independent mental processes, we have to 'flip' from one to the other. The authorities appear to believe that we can be expected to perform this stunt perfectly. I don't believe that. In fact I think performance at the switch is actually dire. This means that drivers setting a legal speed will be FAR SLOWER to reduce speed when danger increases.

And the main evidence is that excessive speed crashes are very markedly on the increase in line with increases in speed enforcement. Well, OF COURSE they are! I predicted that.

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

Right, sorry got sidetracked and had to log off to check something.

The word 'appropriate' is like the word 'attitude', neither works on its own. We don't have a bad attitude, we have a bad attitude towards something, similarly wearing a tuxedo may be appropriate if we include reference to a dinner/dance.

So, in the context of the speed we set as we drive along we have two references to appropriatness namely:

Is it safe to do go at our current speed with respect to our surroundings and..
Is it legal to do so.

This forum creates an inordinate amount of internal heat trying to prove that the speed limit is irrelevant and that you can drive safely above the limit and dangerously below it. That may be true, well it is true in the right circumstances, but its either not legal or not safe - we can't have it both ways. So, in either case we don't tick both boxes and therefore we are failing one of the appropriatness tests.
And it is utterly foolish to try to pretend that the speed limit doesn't exist in a given scenario; it does exist and no government is going to abolish it or change its stance towards it - except by removing digital enforcement which traps people trying to comply with the law but slipping a few mph over. Thus, if we are looking at realistic and do-able ways of improving driver standards and appropriatness of driving behaviour we have to include reference to the annoying rules such as the speed limits.

And theres another facet to this as well. Why for example do I, mpaton2004, handy and BW believe that obeying the law is a good thing? Why do others (in various previous missives on the subject) believe it to be a sign of weak will, meekness or some other pejorative descriptor of our personal traits. Well, to examine that we are into ad-hominem territory aren't we?



Why on earth should this happen? If drivers are the normal repsonsible and intelligent people we believe them to be they will listen to the messages about safe and appropriate speeds within the posted limit and act accordingly. Why would they become so dumb as to throw themselves off the road, the argument that drivers are responsible and this postulation simply don't go together.

Ultimately, it boils down to personal opinion, some think we can drive safely and stick to the limit, others think one compromises the other. However, if we assert that drivers can't do both together (obey the rules and drive safely), how do the Germans manage it in their highly regulated environment?

I don't believe it. Or at least I don't believe it where hazards are greatest and the risk of crashes are greatest. If you think about it, the sample data from Avon and Somerset proves that it tends to work the other way. http://www.safespeed.org.uk/aands.html

And anyway, 'speeding' is far more commonplace than 'excessive speed' crashes - let alone crashes involving speeding.



Suppose all the speed limits broke tomorrow due to a legal technicallity (well, I can dream!). Would you drive at a dangerous speed? Of course you wouldn't.

So who are these people who would? And don't you think we might do rather better if we got a grip of those few rather than distracted everyone with a policy that has grown far too big for its boots?



The point is that we MUST emphasize safety over legallity.

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

That's a huge meander when all we're really trying to do is agree terms.

Is it safe? Then it's termed appropriate.

It it legal? Then it's termed 'not speeding'.

You and several other people are having trouble with the term 'appropriate' applied to something that may sometimes be illegal.

Well, I have a problem applying anything less than 'appropriate' to behaviour that meets safety standards.

But I don't mind if you want to define your own terms for legal and safety factors.



See my reply to Handy. There's a price to pay for giving the wrong messages, and a price to pay for giving people the wrong reasons for chosing a speed. Those prices are paid in blood.

[edited to fix bizarre spelling of 'paid'; 'payed' indeed! Where did that come from? ]

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

Fine, its your forum and campaign. If you want to define 'appropriate' in a way I consider inappropriate then we have a difference upon which we'll have to agree to disagree.



So we change the messages and give them the right reasons for choosing a safe speed within the limit. People are, supposedly, intelligent and responsible and will adapt and understand. You seem utterly insistent that the two cannot live together and we shouldn't even try, I firmly disagree. After all, the Germans manage it, why can't we?

Perhaps we should publish a short list of contentious terms with 'accepted local definitions'? Would that please you? It could save us from some fairly pointless discussions, I think.



If the 'messages' are honest, accurate, and given with correctly judged 'importance factors' I'll be happy (about that part). If we tell people they will turn into kiddie killers if they exceed the speed limit by 3mph, then everyone who takes that message on board becomes MORE dangerous, because it will concentrate them on the WRONG safety factor.

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

I believe that differences of opinion over simple words often unveils deep seated differences in our stance on the issue in question.



OK, we're much closer here . IMHO, we/you need to win the battles and arguments that are winnable. I'm sure you're right that the authorities are currently sending out simplistic messages that might get misunderstood or misapplied, in fact I know you are. Those messages have to be changed to give drivers better information and training.
BUT, I think we have to accept that the rules are not going to be taken away or modified to any great extent, and so the new improved messages must also communicate to drivers the idea that they should drive safely within the boundaries laid down by the rules.

Maybe, but it's bloody hard to know while we're haggling about implied meaning isn't it?

So how about finding a solution? You seem to have ignored my suggestion!

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

Agreed... Always accepting that "the rules" are defined with logic and sense - something that appears to be increasingly absent when new speed limits are imposed.

I know that I keep harking back to Erdington Road, Aldridge - which had its NSL limit reduced to 30, for no apparent reason other than Walsall CBC's crazy PC "Speed Limits Life" campaign, and as a result has increased traffic speed in the "genuine" built-up zone - but I have difficulty coming to terms with the purely legalistic concept of behaviour that yesterday was completely legal is today, with no change in hazard density or other external factors, sufficient to get you banned (60 in a 30 zone).

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

That's nothing, SafeSpeed! You've deleted mine!

_________________
I stole this .sig

This is exactly my point, just better phrased. I'm not an anarchist and blast everywhere as fast as I can possibly go, I just refuse to put mere legal technicalities, imposed by dimwits and not for the sake of safety, above mine and other people's safety. Maybe it's just specific to the area I live in (West Bromwich)?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Forgive me for appearing obtuse and obstructive, but I'm not sure we can solutionise this problem. If you decide to define the word 'appropriate' in a context I disagree with then the best I can hope to do is to bite the bullet and ignore it each time it crops up.
However, at least I and others will know what you mean I suppose.

Logic and sense as far as you are concerned But that's another part of the issue isn't it?
Putting pressure on to get daft implementations of otherwise sound rules altered is one thing, tackling the issue head on with the authorities to get wholesale changes carried out is another.

SafeSpeed might be right - if you take its other meaning, as a verb, it
means to “take exclusive possession”, which is exactly what speeding
cars do in towns and villages.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Or "suitable for the occasion or circumstances" which is exactly what safe drivers do in towns and villages.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Is it really so hard to distinguish between 'appropriate speed' and 'appropriate behaviour' (which is my guess of where the problem lies).

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

Umm,

Err,

Umm,

No

... which must be within the legal limit for the road.

...where sensibly set

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

No, utterly irrelevant - theres nothing in the HC that puts in a caveat about the 'sensibility of the limit' so we're stuck with it. We do not have the remit to decide for ourselves whether a limit has been sensibly set and to give it a damned good ignoring if we conclude that it hasn't. Much as though we might desperately want it.

And yes, I realise this creates a dichotomy whereby we are expected to realise that in many circumstances travelling at the limit is too fast and to adjust our speed accordingly but it doesn't work the other way around, i.e. limit too low lets go faster.
But hey-ho, such is life being a responsible citizen and driver etc etc