Safe Speed Forums

"Why do drivers speed?" is a very key question indeed in the speed camera debate.

We undoubtedly have a minority of reckless individuals who speed dangerously as a result of disregard for the safety of themselves or others. These individuals are dangerous and are well deserved of the attention of the Police. Let's hope they can be identified and dealt with. But I expect everyone will agree that we're talking about considerably less than 10% of the population. So what about the rest of us?

I believe normal drivers speeding behaviour is the manifestation of VITAL safe speed behaviour.

I believe if we actually managed to stop people speeding and they drove by the speedo instead of by the conditions we'd see a MASSIVE increase in the death toll.

I believe that drivers must exhibit "safe speed behaviour" if they are to be successful at avoiding crashes.

I believe we could make drivers more successful at avoiding crashes if we make loud noises about appropriate speed.

I believe that making loud noises about speed limit compliance actually reduces the safe speed behaviour on which our road safety depends.

So why do almost all drivers speed? Is it a good thing? Would we be worse off without it?

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

This is the way I see it...

Drivers exceed the posted limits in areas where they believe it is safe to do so. They do this because in their view, there is no - or very little - increase in danger to themselves from doing this. Driving at the fastest (or a faster) 'safe' speed for a situation means you get to your destination more quickly, and thus become less tired. It also gives you less chance to become bored or distracted, because driving faster requires you to concentrate harder - there are more stimuli to react to in the same amount of time.

Very few drivers drive above the speed limit because they think it's dangerous, and deliberately want to increase the danger to themselves and others. Similarily, very few do it to deliberately flout the law - no one wants to be on the receiving end of points on their licence, or a lecture from a policeman, or losing their licence.

I would even go so far as to say that some people speed out of courtesy. If lanes 1 and 2 on the motorway are blocked by two lorries overtaking each other at 55-60mph, it's not the best idea to overtake in the outside lane at 61mph. (One could argue that you shouldn't pass two vehicles that are themselves overtaking - I'm just using this as an example, however.)

In short - people speed because they disagree with the speed limit in a given area. Whether they're correct to disagree with it is a matter of opinion - but for the most part, drivers are well aware of what is a safe speed in a given situation.

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

In my view drivers exceed the speed limit for the following reasons. (Random order)

1. Ignorance of the posted limit.
2. Aware of limit but feel safe doing so.
3. General traffic flow is greater than posted limit.
4. Deliberate overtaking manuvore.
5. Reckless disregard for the limit. (Boy racers!)
6. Vehicles are more capable of travelling faster.
7. Extra speed is more economic (better?) for vehcile.
8. In a hurry so choose to speed and run risk (Poor planning?)
9. Speed limit is considered inappropriate for area/conditions.
10. Go quicker = get off road faster. (Less opportunity to have accident).
11. The devil made me do it!

All these reasons have been voiced to me while investigating crashes where speed was considered an issue.

Just to be controversial, how about "to improve the quality of their life"?

Lets say Joe Public has to do a 70 mile commute every day, which takes place entirely on a reasonably uncongested motorway. If he exactly obeys the speed limit he spends two hours a day performing a completely unproductive task, time that he can neither spend working nor with his family.

If he were to conduct the same journey at 90mph then he saves just over 13 minutes each way, which is about 2.2 hours per week he has now liberated to spend with his family (or whatever).

The classic "anti-speed" argument is that he shouldn't risk his life in order to do so, but that wrongly pre-supposes that driving at 90mph increases his risk of accident. In truth, if he is driving observantly and considerately it may even be safer than driving slower, as he will tend to me more alert, also completing his journey sooner reduces the risk of a fatigue related accident.

Whilst this whole argument might initially sound reckless and irresponsible, perhaps we need to bear in mind that it is the same basic argument that resulted in the development of the bicycle, train, jet aeroplane etc.

Put simply, the faster we can travel all other things being equal, the better quality of life we can enjoy...

Let's not forget, because it's fun

_________________
Troll baiter extraordinaire

In Sir Alex's now famous case and must be all time classic reason:

- "He had the runs!"

To play devil's avocado for a moment: Because drivers are arrogant and think they know better than traffic planners and road engineers and everyone else? If you keep at or below speed limits at all times then it becomes second nature and you are not necessarily driving by the speedo. If it feels like slow progress then use the extra time you have to make more observations to keep your concentration up.

Once could also argue that the concentration issue has only become a problem in the last decade because of the increasing numbers of young people on the roads that have been brought up watching tv and playing video games which affect their concentration levels quite seriously.

Allow me to remind everyone n this thread that drivers are licenced to use deadly speed. The clear proof being that at least 95% of accidents take place within the speed limit.

If we are to trust drivers to mitigate their deadly speed to avoid accidents, the actual number of the speedometer is of little relevance.

Millions of accidents each day are prevented because drivers have reduced speed when necessary. It is this: "reduce speed when necessary" behaviour, exhibited to excellent effect by drivers everywhere, that is the foundation and the essence of our road safety system.

If drivers are inherently trusted to reduce speed when necessary, then there is little reason why we need to set numerical speed limit on them in general at all. The groups that need numerical speed limits are the novice few and the reckless few. The rest of us are very good indeed at setting appropriate and safe speeds both above and below the speed limit as necessary. We know we're fine at it, and we do it daily.

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

....!? What? That really makes no sense. Your concentration when driving is lowered because you watch television at some point in the day? And it could of course be argued that computer games are beneficial as you develop skills that are important in driving - a prime example being reactions! I find it utterly ludicrous to suggest that your concentration when driving is lower because you play video games.

But then what would I know, I've already jellied my brain by playing said games.

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

I was floating an idea that cultural changes have encouraged shorter attention spans so that drivers are more likely to drive faster to keep their attention & stimulation levels similar to that provided by tv/videogames.

Videogames might improve hand eye coordination but it probably won't do anything for driver attitude. Also after seeing some guy that was the top WRC videogame player stick a real subaru in a ditch it might actually lead to a false impression of a driver's skills

Reactions are only part of the story. Observation is much more important. Young people often use that as an excuse for driving too quickly. I have heard them saying, yes I can drive much faster than other people because I can react in 0.33 of a second instead 0.66 of a second, not realising how little time / distance this actually equates to compared to looking further ahead and judging the likely path of other vehicles well in advance.

I think some research was recently in the news that suggests that those young children that grow up watching lots of telly then later in life are more likely to have shortened attention span and get bored 'when things don't change fast enough'. It's a possibility!

arthurdent

_________________
DO NOT PANIC

The key point here is that drivers in general do not make a conscious, deliberate choice to speed. As they gain experience of driving they learn safe speed behaviour and choose what they judge to be safe and appropriate speeds for the conditions. Whether or not they are exceeding the speed limit is a secondary - but perhaps important - consideration.

While you can train yourself to drive within all limits (more or less), as anyone who has passed an advanced test will know, in many locations it requires a considerable element of holding back from what you perceive to be a reasonable speed, and is by no means as easy as is often claimed by camera apologists. This is particularly so if the speed limit has been reduced from the "correct" level set out in the official guidelines, such as a motorway-standard, grade-separated dual carriageway with a 40 or 50 mph limit.

It is not really relevant to say that drivers learn to drive within the limit when practising for the L-test, and then forget it, because in many cases by the time they take the L-test they have only just learned to drive confidently at up to 30 mph in 30 mph areas anyway. They are only in the very early stages of learning safe speed behaviour.

With the exception of longish motorway journeys, I don't believe drivers are making a rational calculation about time-saving. On a two-mile journey in a built-up area, the time saving from driving for part of the distance at 36 mph rather than 30 mph is likely to be utterly trivial, yet drivers still routinely do it. This is not because they are irresponsible, but because selecting a safe speed rather than adhering to the limit is their primary consideration when driving (as it should be).

Regards,

Peter

_________________
"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

A road local to me, the A180, from Grimsby to the M180, is a classical example of why drivers speed, in this case the road surface is so bloody awful they want to get off it a quick as possible, even in a modern truck it is awful, to cover the road noise, unlike the M180, you have to turn the radio up just to hear it, then turn it down once off it cos it is then too loud.
I also reckon it takes double the milage off your tyres.

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

Hand eye co-ordination in response to repeated game is one thing Mike, but in car your whole body is engaged in hazard perception - COAST, foot off throttle, selecting correct gear, MSM, PSL -etc - plus your own knowledge of what is happening under the bonnet!

And perhaps all this technology that basingwerk is so keen on is making us lose control, get impatient and frustrated when things appear "slow"

What makes motorists speed or drive more quickly than the little lollipops say? - Well - I have heard the same as jeremy55 when I have pulled people in the past.

Perhaps they all drive up to 5mph above posted limits "because the flow of traffic is cruising at that speed and it thus feels safer to move with the flow! , keep the two second rule and adjust to lower speeds with the flow."

The gain in confidence as Peter says; the "stupidity" of dual carriageway reduced from 50 and 40mph to 30 mph and the low speed "feels incorrect" to them. Perhaps!

Perhaps it is question of not knowing their car well enough - some cars do labour in fourth gear and struggle in fourth. So people increase speed instead of changing down and tootling along in third.

And let us not forget that we do not think we are harming anyone by doing so! Most of the time - we don't!

But there are those occasions when the unthinkable happens!

But - as said before - drive with COAST! It helps keep your speed down to the safest speed - and usually within the 10% plus 2! (unless on the motorway! - So they will now think of using the super turbo charged laser to get you instead! )

OK. Let's try to develop this a bit... Keeping the same context: "Why do drivers speed", let's try these additional questions:

If you had no working speedometer, could you drive safely over an extended time period (say many months)?

If you could drive safely, what does that tell you about the real importance of the speedometer and the numbers it shows?

Do you all see how absolutely primary to safety setting a suitable speed for the conditions MUST BE, while the number on the speedo isn't a great deal more than a distraction to an experienced and careful driver?

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

My first car had a speedo that didn't work properly. It was a nuisance when it stopped working as anywhere with speed cameras meant I had to crawl through to be on the safe side. If there weren't speed cameras then it wouldn't have mattered a jot whether I had a speedo or not. The only thing to watch out for is where you become disorientated eg doing 60 on an A road switching into a wide town road where the limit is 30. You find you would keep your speed up a lot more with a non working speedo than a working one. 40 would feel slow but might be rather too quick in a lot of circumstances. Speedos are a good reminder that perception isn't always the best judge of speed in all circumstances.

My dad also had a completely failed speedo for 2 years. He used the rev counter as a guide but only in 5th gear (which he stays in all the time, eeek). He is definitely one of those that believes if you stay near 30 in a 30 then it wastes far too much time and you should ignore them. He was brought up during a time when there weren't limits on A roads or motorways and was quite happy to drive along a country road at 90-100, in the sixties when it was still legal. His father was also a fast driver but did remind him that if you are on a nsl road it isn't wise to over take at 100-120 and you should slow down to about 20-30mph more than the vehicle you are overtaking as they might not see you properly otherwise.

I would be interested to know the difference in accident rates between a few years before the nsl was reduced to 60 on A roads and a few years after and whether it did cause a big drop in accidents. I would also like to know the same for when the limit was changed on the motorways.

I would add:

"Would you drive (on average and/or in certain defined conditions or circumstances) faster, slower or at about the same speed (as when you had a working speedometer)?

It would be even more interesting to measure actual 'speed' behaviour, with and without a working speedometer, across a range of different driver types.

I've driven cars / bikes without speedos in years gone by and never felt it posed the slightest safety issue. I wouldn't like to try it now as it would make you a menace wherever there were cameras.

I posted a similar conversation piece on the CSCP forum a while ago. The example I cited was a theoretical road known not to contain any speed enforcement, and you have to drive 100 miles along it, through villages etc but with no speedo. I for one wouldn't feel any more likely to crash in that scenario, indeed knowing you had no speedo might even make you safer, as you would be more aware of the need to use all the other visual cues to select your speed, which ultimately are better guides anyway.

Then change the same example, so that there are a dozen points along the route with highly visible GATSO cameras or vans. Now you have to try and make some sort of accurate guess about your numerical speed, which is incredibly difficult to judge to the level of precision that is needed. In reality you would have to allow a big safety margin and travel unreasonably slowly, which would pose an unexpected danger to other road users. But that's not too bad, it's only maybe 1/2 a mile total out of 100 miles.

But now lets go the whole hog and assume we have completely covert enforcement, or SPECS cameras or the like. How on earth would you judge your speed through all the changing limits? Your driving would become completely erratic and unpredictable.

And to a lesser extent that demonstrates the actual effect of speed enforcement, whether you have a speedo or not...

Sorry to be going a bit off topic here, but I'd like to try and get to the bottom of this



Yes - but why does watching television, or playing a computer game, damage your ability to do those other things?



Ooh, so you think the limits on motorways are set too low? Thought you were an advocate of the speed limits as they stand, and just didn't like the scammers!

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

This would make an interesting poll, I feel. My personal answer would probably be 'at about the same speed' - although I guess like others have said, I would have to slow down for cameras more than I would with a working speedo.

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..