Safe Speed Forums

Wouldn't work.

Because almost all accidents are not caused by breaking the speed limit, but those who set speed limits believe that they are, when the accident rate stubbornly failed to reduce, the speed limit would be reduced still further.

If we were to ever achieve >90% compliance with speed limits, I would expect the Partnerships to reduce speed limits to even more unreasonable levels in order to protect their jobs and their revenue stream.

Either that, or Councils would shift emphasis elsewhere, e.g. intensifying parking enforcement or accelerating congestion charging plans.

If they had no choice but to lay off all their fines processing staff, where do you think the money for all those redundancy cheques would come from?

Now that speed camera money has been added to the balance sheet, it is here to stay. If the revenue from cameras dries up, it will be taken from elsewhere. They will add it to our Council tax bills if they have to.

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

Wrong.

I'd be interested to know what that threshold might be?

Surely, it can only ever be the unattainable "zero"?

I can't think of a single politician who, in the face of the inevitable onslaught from the "something-must-be-done" brigade will ever have the balls to say anything along the lines of:

"well, 50 KSIs in the UK last year - I reckon that's about as good as it's gonna get"!

But, Weepej, that's exactly the mindset engendered by the current obsession with speed limits as the be-all and end-all of road safety: "I'm doing 29 mph in a 30 mph zone, so everything I do is all right, and any accident can't be my fault"


Hear, hear! - but easier to do if you are not giving your speedometer too much vigilance for fear of being caught by a revenue camera.


I'm curious to know why you selected this figure. Is there any reason for it? Why 20%, and not 5%, 12%, 50% (or whatever)? And is it a fixed percentage, or is it variable according to the prevailing circumstances and conditions?

_________________
Save a cow - eat a vegetarian

And how exactly do speed enforcment measures encorage anybody to increase their vigilance to real hazards?

I believe it has exactly the opposite effect in that it reduces peoples vigilance to anything much other than staying under the speed limit when knowiningly in proximity of a speed detection device. What it does do is encorage ppl to think that because they are driving under the speed limit vigilace to hazards is pretty much unneseassary as they are doing nothing wrong. Posted speed limits have little to do with potential hazards or hazard perception.

There are no direct threats to pedestrians inside any car, save for the driver.
The more attention the driver takes away from what is going on outside the car, the more danger to those outside the car.

The best way for a driver to interact properly with the world around him / her is to turn his / her focus away from him / herself.

If you think you're going too fast, step on the brake, but for Fate's sake, keep your eyes on the road.
If you can't tell that you're going too fast for conditions / safety's sake without a speedo, can you really drive?

(Although NY State cops are about as robotic as your cameras in their speed enforcement, they are not nearly as prevalent. The above answer does not take into account the driver's bank account, but rather the safety of those outside the car. The two are seldom directly related.)

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

Any thoughts, Weepej?

_________________
Save a cow - eat a vegetarian

I know this is a perennial issue, but just out of interest rather than trying to provoke an argument, is there any evidence (other than anecdotal skid marks next to camera sites type stuff) that this thought process is actually going on?

The reason I ask is because it assumes an incredibly low level of reasoning skills on behalf of a significant chunk of drivers on the roads. Drivers who otherwise seem to be doing quite well at driving.

Anecdotally I recall a called on Jeremy Vine (when they were talking about people who don't indicate) saying she didn't need to indicate because she always obeyed the speed limit. Eh?

I know this is only one story, but I think a lot of people genuinely think like this because for the last 15 years the only road safety message that's been consistently applied is "speed kills", hence if they get that bit right, they don't need to worry about the rest.

I very regularly see what I believe to be evidence of this mindset. Cars ahead of me driving at or below the speed limit carry on at the same speed past potential hazards, such as lines of parked vans or children playing on the pavement - where I slow right down. I couldn't say for sure whether this is because this thought process is going on or whether it's become more prevalent of late, but it certainly seems to be the case - from my viewpoint anyway.



Perhaps the fact that they don't have many accidents - and so appear to be doing quite well - may be because they're just lucky that potential hazards hardly ever turn into real hazards while they're around.
I've driven in the order of half a million miles and have only ever had two pedestrians run out in front of me (neither of them hit, btw) but, even though it's a very rare occurrence, i always assume that it can happen.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

We call it the "Pavlov dog effect". You see folk slowing for cams. It's as if they are only looking for this hazard as they sure as hell do not seem to be aware of other hazards around

Complacency as well.. believing they will never have an accident if they obey a speed limit also creates accidents too. Sometimes they are just lucky or they catalyse an incident and still remain oblivious to the danger they created

Can be just luck. Can be that they do not drive long distances either... with the most in terms of accident being the "shunt in slow moving traffic which does not do over much damage and can be fixed sometimes by the "ding the dent" paintless repair kits.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

The silence is deafening!

Why am I not surprised?

_________________
Save a cow - eat a vegetarian

Not the first time is it?

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

Prior to the internal combustion engine - records seem to show that people of yester-year were killed by "getting in the way of horse/horses with carriages"

A bicycle required perhaps more energy than riding a horse to achieve a similar speed. Er... the early bicycles did not have carbon frames.. alluminium frames.. alloy wheels .. lightweight gel saddles and a nifty gearing system so as a means of transport were perhaps not as practical as the family "nag"

But I dare say that had the car never been invented - and bicycles and horses remained - a growing population would perhaps hsve the same worries as today as regards road safety.

Road safety then by definition requires common sense/courtesy and responsibility to be applied by ALL using the roads out there. so how they choose to travel

So yes.. I think as a decent courteous person I have a duty of care to othr pedestrians with whom I am sharing a footpath when walking. I have a duty of care to myself and a cyclist not to deliberately get in the way.. just as I have the same duty of care to myself and the motorist not to saunter out in front of them without looking.

Likewise.. on my bicycle.. on my motorbike.. in my car .. whether driving as a MoP or as a BiB on proper police duty.. I have a duty of care and responsibility not to antagonise or frighten or inconvenience another road user.

However, it's still COAST values which determine safety out there so how we travel. COAST places folk in charge to some extent as well as ensuring they manage to keep more or less safe and legal

But weepej - we do believe in folk being responsible for their own actions. If they were not - I could arrest folk and not get one charge to stick in court based on the fact that "they are not responsible or have a duty of care towards others".

I once received a strong telling off from a Swiss gendarme for crossing on a red man when aged about 14. That country and some other EU states and the US hold the view that all road users , including pedestrians should have some responsibility for their actions. I think they are correct in this. I

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

L.O.L., "Heavy and fast vehicles" that is definately the exageration of the anti car brigade. Horses are "heavy and fast" yet I can't imagine you have ever addressed them in the same way. At the end of the day the pedestrian must take responsibility for themselves in addition to the driver taking responsibility to avoid incidents as best they can. This also applies to those children who are on the government adverts who run into the road-why weren't they green cross code trained? They should educate these young children on the dangers of crossing the road. And may I please spare a thought for all involved in the tragic incident

Ridiculous comments. Horses are an absolute minority mode of transport (I would imagine less than 0.01%)

Children run into the road because children do.

If you saw someone on fire in the middle of a petrol station, would you make the neccessary hours of risk-assessments concerning naked flames around flammable liquids? No, you'd bloody well run and help them. Adrenalin. When that football runs into the road, it's exactly the same for the kids - and the last thing they deserve is paying for it with their lives and some bloody side-show saying "ooh, they should have learned the green-cross code, roads are for cars, blah, blah, blah".

I have! 45 mph was the fastest I have ever done on a bicycle and I sh1t myself! I have also done it in a car and on a motorbike down the very same stretch of road and it felt like I could get off and walk quicker.

I expect I would sh1t myself if I was a jockey at the Grand National doing 40+. So what's your point? Speed kills?





Yes I can! Are you seriously telling me you can't discern between a safe and unsafe speed for the conditions? If your speedometer broke are you really so un-spatially aware that you couldn't get back home SAFELY?

If not, I certainly wouldn't want to be a passenger in your car!

If I were your mum I'd slap your arse and send you to bed.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Thats a pretty defeatist attitude! When I was younger, but old enough to be allowed by the road unsupervised, I didn't run out after balls without looking, nor did I cross between parked cars. Why? Because I am a perfect angel? Not likely! Because my parents, school and other responsible adults drilled me with the correct procedures to observe at the kerb? Absolutely!

Education, not legislation.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Granted, maybe a majority of kids don't run into roads (if they did I'm sure we'd have a higher child fatality rate than we presently do) but for those that do, we want drivers looking out for them and travelling at an appropriate and legal speed.

Education only works when people want to be educated. Legislation should deal with those who don't.