cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
Why on earth would a driver 'panic' when they're driving along well within the speed limit?
Why indeed? But they do. I've seen it happen often enough.
The new speed cameras....and accidents caused by the current ones...
- Thread starter slainte
- Start date
Why indeed? But they do. I've seen it happen often enough.
editor
hiraethified
Really? Why should any person 'panic' if they're driving along and keeping an eye on their speed, as required by the Highway Code?
hmm i agree with most points and upon reflection where i initally thought that some were falling into the speed kills mindset is that often it is more complex than that...in this case it was as a result of basically one twat not noting the speed of the road he she was on (a 50mph with repeaters ffs!) so that they could drop back to the limit if over it and when the camera came into view slammed on the achors "as they clearly didn't note what the speed was whilst on said stretch of road and even missed the repeaters in short shit obeservation sorry but no excuse ..and fell into the "drop down to 28 or 25mph just to be safe CAUSE IM NOT SPEEDING NOW ...and caused an accident .....to clarify most of those "safety" organisations which some here bemoan is that they wanted the speed of the limit pasted on the back of the cameras so that even a glance could ascertain for a quick check not engendering a blind look to the left look to the right ..taking concentration away from the road....
which is now occuring... there is always circumstances where one will slow down before or may have to REASONABLY exceed the limit as long as the average limit is maintained ..is a good thing but OBSERVATION of what is occuring before is paramount..if you cant do so then fuck off frankly cause you WILL CAUSE an accident...period only a matter of time..
the other problem is that yeah you might be SPEEDING and get flashed does that itself solve the wankery driving/riding does it! ... also the FACT that it is iLLEGAL to put repeaters on 30 mph stretches of road.eh WHAT ??.yeah I only know that when it was pointed out to me when I did futher training above the DVLA ...outlining a failing on their system frankly... next WHY must there be a certain number of fatalites in 30mph stretches BEFORE a speed camera can be put in a stretch of road which essentially has more vunerable road users, children, cyclists etc...where is the common sense ?
As for focusing on cameras ..well Its not addressing the issue.. one which no politican wants to promote only hear say token gestures..such as slapping cameras about everywhere in the HOPE that it will regulate and smooth out driving make safer driving etc.
I can buy a telly and I then need a licence and THEN NEED TO RENEW IT REGULARLY.. but I can take a car test or a motorbike test and ride/drive a killing machine without ever being checked on my standards to see if they are kept up or more importantly improved to a higher standard as the traffic density increases...yeah it a priviledge NOT a right ..get it and if Im not up to the mark then sorry but I cannot drive ride...which would geniunely address the problem wouldn't it..but NO driving is viewed as a right..I hope Im making sense here...
Yes it would be good if everyone stuck to the speed limit but essentially people OVERREACT when approaching a camera rather than being aware of the limit they are on and if the road ahead is clear then they can proceed AT the limit ...rather than slam on the brakes panic etc....AT the LIMIT if there is no reasonable reason why you shouldnt its called making progress
Did that camera help that poor person on their commute to work did it make that piece of road safer..no it didn't what caused the problem was substandard inattentive driving and unfortuately the rider not being able to forsee with some reasonable expectation of the traffic about him....its as much in the thinking processs as in the skillset and observation at all times of the limits is necessary...people whom excessively speed will always do so irrespective of cameras etc. hence they keep getting points on the licence till they are removed from the system....why not have re-tests every 5 years or so...if you are CONFIDENT of being at the level or the NEWER level then prove it...
which is now occuring... there is always circumstances where one will slow down before or may have to REASONABLY exceed the limit as long as the average limit is maintained ..is a good thing but OBSERVATION of what is occuring before is paramount..if you cant do so then fuck off frankly cause you WILL CAUSE an accident...period only a matter of time..the other problem is that yeah you might be SPEEDING and get flashed does that itself solve the wankery driving/riding does it! ... also the FACT that it is iLLEGAL to put repeaters on 30 mph stretches of road.eh WHAT ??.yeah I only know that when it was pointed out to me when I did futher training above the DVLA ...outlining a failing on their system frankly... next WHY must there be a certain number of fatalites in 30mph stretches BEFORE a speed camera can be put in a stretch of road which essentially has more vunerable road users, children, cyclists etc...where is the common sense ?
As for focusing on cameras ..well Its not addressing the issue.. one which no politican wants to promote only hear say token gestures..such as slapping cameras about everywhere in the HOPE that it will regulate and smooth out driving make safer driving etc.
I can buy a telly and I then need a licence and THEN NEED TO RENEW IT REGULARLY.. but I can take a car test or a motorbike test and ride/drive a killing machine without ever being checked on my standards to see if they are kept up or more importantly improved to a higher standard as the traffic density increases...yeah it a priviledge NOT a right ..get it and if Im not up to the mark then sorry but I cannot drive ride...which would geniunely address the problem wouldn't it..but NO driving is viewed as a right..I hope Im making sense here...
Yes it would be good if everyone stuck to the speed limit but essentially people OVERREACT when approaching a camera rather than being aware of the limit they are on and if the road ahead is clear then they can proceed AT the limit ...rather than slam on the brakes panic etc....AT the LIMIT if there is no reasonable reason why you shouldnt its called making progress
Did that camera help that poor person on their commute to work did it make that piece of road safer..no it didn't what caused the problem was substandard inattentive driving and unfortuately the rider not being able to forsee with some reasonable expectation of the traffic about him....its as much in the thinking processs as in the skillset and observation at all times of the limits is necessary...people whom excessively speed will always do so irrespective of cameras etc. hence they keep getting points on the licence till they are removed from the system....why not have re-tests every 5 years or so...if you are CONFIDENT of being at the level or the NEWER level then prove it...
editor
hiraethified
So you're now advocating a minimum speed limit of, what, 60mph for motorways?
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
No, not a legal minimum in most circumstances. It's not a black and white issue.
There's that phrase of the Highway Code which tells you to drive at a speed "appropriate for the conditions" which is eminently sensible advice, but requires the application of some awareness and judgement.
You're more likely to be pulled over for it rather than actually charged with anything, but it's covered perfectly adequately by existing legislation: "driving without reasonable consideration".
In the particular conditions I described, a car driving at 40 created a hazard, especially when it pulled out into the second lane. Good driving is about not creating hazards (and reacting appropriately when they occur).
In good conditions, 60 would certainly be an appropriate speed to travel at.
In the midst of a torrential downpour it could well be too fast and 40 mph might be entirely appropriate. I've pulled off motorways in the past when I felt that other traffic continuing at 60-70 mph put me at undue risk.
In very heavy traffic, 40 could be safe: the variable speed limits on the M25 often drop to that level in those conditions. Conversely, on an empty motorway with good sight lines, 40 could even be safe.
That said, there is a rarely used sign set aside for a minimum speed. You can find an example at the Dartford Tunnel.
Er, because they do. Because a heavy-handed and punitive enforcement system results in overcompensatory reactions on the part of the people subject to it.Why on earth would a driver 'panic' when they're driving along well within the speed limit?
We really aren't arguing opposite sides here, ed: we both agree that the way forward for road safety is for people to drive more safely.
Where perhaps we differ is in the implementation. I think that a "binary" system whereby so long as you remain within (often arbitrary) speed limits and don't commit various other offences which, with the disproportionate emphasis on speed, are quite hard to get caught for, you're a "good" driver, but where, the minute you stray over a speed limit, you've suddenly become a "bad" driver is not a good system.
Back in the bad old days, there was a discretionary element: coppers would pull people over, and make a judgement by the roadside that a bit of heavy "where's the fire, then, sir" sarcasm and a sternly wagged finger was enough, or that the transgression was serious enough to warrant prosecution. Very little speed enforcement, proportionally, is done that way now.
I cannot help wondering if it is a coincidence that the reverse in the steady drop in RTA KSIs that had taken place through the 1980s and early '90s was purely coincidental with the switch in enforcement from patrols to cameras. It may be coincidence, but there are good enough reasons to suggest that camera-based enforcement may result in more convictions, but doesn't necessarily actually either reduce the number of speeding offences being committed, or - more crucially - make the roads safer.
Psychology is, whether we like it or not (after all, it turns a nice cosy binary picture into a much more complicated one without those comfy moral absolutes), a factor in this. We need to be being CREATIVE in our approaches to make the roads safer, not resorting solely to "use a bigger stick" approaches.
Case in point: the massive change in the prevalence of drink driving did not take place purely because of enforcement. It was achieved by a combination of enforcement and credible, believable messages about the harm it does, and the risks it presents, that have resulted in a sea change in social attitudes towards it. 30 years ago, people could still get away with saying things like "I drive better after a couple of pints", and it was all a bit of a laugh when someone staggered out to his car after 5 or 6 and couldn't get the key in the door. Now, quite rightly, it's quite likely that someone seeing someone do that would try to stop them, and might even report it.
The credibility of the "speed kills" message, on the other hand, is undermined by the fact that it's perceived as not the whole story, and enforced in a way which gets in the way of people recognising that it's one part of a much bigger road safety picture. It's the equivalent of the farcical "Just Say No" campaigns against drugs of the 1980s, which demonised all drugs equally, the same way that we demonise doing 80 on the motorway as equally as we do driving past a school at 40.
I want the roads to be as safe as you want them to be! I just think that the attitudes and approaches we're taking to it are simplistic and not very credible.
Unfair. It's a counter-example to the idea that "slower is safer", and a reasonable point to make.
You'd fail a driving test for driving in the way that Micra did. And with good reason.
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
Bollocks.
It's patently obvious that motorways are a special case.
I encountered one of those on the M5 recently - except that the driver didn't try to leave the inside lane - hardly any point, was there ?
It made it difficult for me to overtake it though ...
I know the road that poster was talking about. It wasn't a motorway.
I have experienced the same behaviour he describes on that very interchange, and it IS dangerous. Part of the problem is perhaps the road layout - and I sometimes think insufficient attention is paid to that - but the bottom line is that, as he said, there are times when driving too slowly is, itself, a potential cause of accidents.
Like I said, you can fail a driving test for driving inappropriately slowly. On any kind of road.
editor
hiraethified
I wasn't saying "slower is safer."
I was saying that if drivers stayed within the legal limits there'd be no need for speed cameras or the 'panic' they supposedly instil.
DownwardDog
Well-Known Member
The problem with staying within the speed limit is that it is patently less fun than driving really fast.
editor
hiraethified
Well that and selfish, reckless, dangerous cunts who think the rules don't apply to them or that they "know better."
DownwardDog
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Just like people who drink on the tube knowing it's illegal.
Yes, sorry, I could have made my point a bit more clearly. The trouble is that - and again, this is psychology - people see "SPEED KILLS" and immediately infer "LACK OF SPEED IS DOUBLEPLUSGOOD". The message needs to be more general.
I think what happens is people see a speed camera, and go (mentally) "Ooh, speed bad. Less speed good, therefore if I slow down I am a better person. And if I slow down LOTS, I'm a really good person" (massively oversimplifying the value judgements that are getting made here, for comic and didactic effect).
Essentially, because the "Speed is Bad" message has been drummed home so effectively, they're insulated from the consequences of doing really stupid things like suddenly losing speed (a good thing, by inference) for no apparent reason.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
I think you've got even less faith in drivers' abilities than I have.
If drivers are so dumb that they make the kind of thought-narratives you outline here, why should we be giving them autonomy to decide what's a safe limit for themselves?
And what happened to all the 'complex psychology' of your earlier posts?
You seem to be saying that the "speed is dangerous" case has increased danger by spooking drivers into driving too slowly! This is getting weird....
editor
hiraethified
If they're driving along at a safe and legal speed, they should not have to give the speed camera anything more than a cursory glance.
All this cod-psychology bollocks stuff more about your own projection and insecurities, is you ask me.
editor
hiraethified
I don't believe drinking on the tube causes thousands of fatalities and injuries every year.
DownwardDog
Well-Known Member
There you go then. You "know better" than the idiots who decided to ban drinking on the tube. The broader point is that we all pick and choose which laws we feel like obeying or think ought to be obeyed based on personal prejudice and, to some extent, the likelihood of being caught.
I think that's a tiny bit ruder, and quite a lot more dismissive that was entirely warranted, ed. Nonetheless, your point is made: you don't want to hear about anything other than the straight up-and-down dogmas you're comfortable with on this.
I can live with that.
obanite
Kroketten
A problem I've noticed is that sections of road have been chopped up too much into too many different speed limits. A good example of this is the road from Nottingham to Matlock - also a controversial one because it's seen its share of accidents - but going with the theme of this thread, is it necessarily the right thing to do to:
1) make it so you have 40mph limits on dual carriageways with no built up areas, that then go up to 50, then to national limit, then back to 40, then national again, then 40s through built up areas, 30s again, back to 40s, then 50s, etc. etc
2) put speed cameras & slow down signs everywhere, and chevrons on bends so gentle you could probably take them at 70mph (in theory of course)?
I think the problem is you get overkill, too many distractions, and an obsession on regulating speed at the expense of all else. It results in people focusing on getting their speed right and having less time to think about other things - like that sharp bend going onto the bridge, or the pub ahead with people turning into and out of it, the road surface, weather conditions, and so on.
There's plenty of drivers who have the best intentions and that understandably get a bit wound up driving roads like that.
1) make it so you have 40mph limits on dual carriageways with no built up areas, that then go up to 50, then to national limit, then back to 40, then national again, then 40s through built up areas, 30s again, back to 40s, then 50s, etc. etc
2) put speed cameras & slow down signs everywhere, and chevrons on bends so gentle you could probably take them at 70mph (in theory of course)?
I think the problem is you get overkill, too many distractions, and an obsession on regulating speed at the expense of all else. It results in people focusing on getting their speed right and having less time to think about other things - like that sharp bend going onto the bridge, or the pub ahead with people turning into and out of it, the road surface, weather conditions, and so on.
There's plenty of drivers who have the best intentions and that understandably get a bit wound up driving roads like that.
editor
hiraethified
Except that it's one thing to choose to ignore a minor transport bylaw which affects no one at all, but it's an entirely different thing to choose to ignore a law which vastly increases the probability of other people being injured or killed.
Now we're back onto cyclists lashing through red lights...........
Something is working:
Road Casualties from www.statistics.gov.uk
If the complaint about resources being diverted from traffic patrols to speed cameras were well-founded, at least one of those lines would be going up.
See, the thing is, speed does kill.
I don't think many drivers have the faintest inkling of the implications of this simple fact: the energy of the collision rises as the square of the speed.
I don't expect many ever will - though making numeracy a requirement for driving would be another way massively to cut road deaths
So I have another idea. Graded accelerator pedals. You have to push four times as hard to do 60 as you do to do 30. It gets tiring. You slow down.
Road Casualties from www.statistics.gov.uk
If the complaint about resources being diverted from traffic patrols to speed cameras were well-founded, at least one of those lines would be going up.
See, the thing is, speed does kill.
I don't think many drivers have the faintest inkling of the implications of this simple fact: the energy of the collision rises as the square of the speed.
I don't expect many ever will - though making numeracy a requirement for driving would be another way massively to cut road deaths
So I have another idea. Graded accelerator pedals. You have to push four times as hard to do 60 as you do to do 30. It gets tiring. You slow down.
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
Bzzt! wrong. It needn't go up.
Did you not notice how that rate of decrease of road casualties has reduced dramatically since the early 90s when, coincidentally, speed cameras were first introduced in the UK?*
Other factors, such as changes in other safety standards (airbags, compulsory seat belts for rear passengers, etc.) road design improvements, and so on should also be taken into account when reading these figures.
Plausibly, the graph demonstrates the very thing you're saying it doesn't
* The Independent, June 2006
The Independent said:
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
Common sense would dictate you should just make the things less visible. I have no idea why whoever's decision it was thought it would be a good idea to signpost them in reflective yellow.
I am surprised to see you quoting such simplistic bollocks.
INAPPROPRIATE speed may kill. Speed on it's own doesn't (as everyone keeps pointing out, everyone else speeds all the fucking time and somehow don't end up dead ..).
Your velocity certainly increases the chances of injury and death IF a collision occurs ... but that is VERY different from showing a causal link between the original speed and the death. The speed is a CONTRIBUTORY factor to the OUTCOME but that is not the same as being the CAUSE.
Who's claiming that? But, SHOUTY CAPITALISED STRAWMEN and dogma aside, if the number of accidents remains the same, then the number of fatalities and serious injuries will fall if speed limits are adhered to or reduced.
Of course, some people are better able to drive and maintain speed safely than others, but we all know of the non-arbitrary nature of laws. This is more understandable than most.
Of course, some people are better able to drive and maintain speed safely than others, but we all know of the non-arbitrary nature of laws. This is more understandable than most.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
Speed kills. Seriously.
Sure it's a simplistic slogan, but it's designed to communicate an important fact. Please don't try to obscure and undermine the message.
The energy delivered by an impact is calculated by multiplying half the mass of the impacting object by the square of its speed
Do the sums and you discover the difference between being hit by a car going at 30mph and a car going at 20mph is enormous. The additional 10mph more than doubles the force of the bone-crunching, flesh-mashing impact.
Sure it's a simplistic slogan, but it's designed to communicate an important fact. Please don't try to obscure and undermine the message.
The energy delivered by an impact is calculated by multiplying half the mass of the impacting object by the square of its speed
Code:
e = (mv^2)/2Those who use simplistic slogans which lots of people know to be untrue undermine their own message (and, sadly, undermine the important aspects of the message as well (i.e. inappropriate speed causes collisions and kills)).
cf: Ecstasy kills, kids. Look, here's a tragedy (Leah Betts, etc.) Don't do it! Er ... but I and my mates do E every weekend. Everyone does and they don't die. So they're obviously talking bollocks. So we won't take any notice.
Similar threads
