Safe Speed Forums

I have no problem with sightseeing passengers, but the driver should be looking at the road ahead, not the flippin' scenery. Driving is his job for the day. If he catches a glimpse of the scenery now and again because he can't help it, that's OK, but the main thing is driving, not gawping. As for runners and cyclists, well they are not too lethal, except to themselves. I don't care (as much) if people risk thier own necks (medical taxes aside for one moment) but I don't like it when they risk mine as well!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Just wanted to expand on some of the more psychological aspects of the question which Paul addressed at the start of the thread.

The way we react to imminent high stress trauma events is a relatively new aspect of study and a difficult one to research because its difficult to reproduce anything like reality in experimental settings, (methodologically & ethically).

But there is plenty of qualitative evidence to map out how the brain works in such situations. Cutting a long story short, you need to have learned an action or sequence of actions to be of any use in such a situation. You need to be 'programmed'. This is why the army etc are trained so intensely, correct action becomes automatic. The brain does not remain in anything like 'normal' state otherwise. It tries to process the incoming much more quickly and this is why people say 'everything went into slow-motion'. It also takes away resources from other functions. Time/distance/sound perception can be altered and you can lose your peripheral vision as the brain acts like a computer and rations out its processing ability. This is why the majority of people react so badly to crash situations.

What this is leading to is that very few of us (skilled drivers aside) will realistically exercise much choice in our actions as the moment of impact approaches.

This is all very true, and very few of us are going to get on the racetrack or skidpan to test those skills. So that means we should take even greater care to avoid getting into a bad spot in the first place, by driving with plenty of margin.

If a person want thrills, try Blackpool fun fair, or Old Trafford, or the Alps, but stay off the roads.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Never give up looking for the way out. I suppose being a biker makes you always look for the escape route IMHO. Trees, NEVER. Just ask Marc Bolan. Oh, you can't, he's dead. Always choose man made objects such as signage or walls over trees. Trees have no give at all. Even a lamp post's a safer bet.

If there really is no escape route, parked cars are always a relatively good bet as you double your crumple zones and in a hard hit, they move. It's all about reducing the rate of sudden deceleration once avoidance has failed.

As for thinking about others before yourself. Not likely, our human instinct in a crisis is survival, not looking out for someone else.

_________________
Troll baiter extraordinaire

Thrill seeking on the roads is selfish unless there is a complete absence of risk to others. But I'd say that its probably quite beneficial for drivers to 'play safely' from time to time to keep skills sharp and continue to learn. By 'playing safely' I mean selecting a time or place which is safe (and these do exist) to push gently at our limits, remind ourselves what a bit of under/oversteer feels like, an emergency stop or two etc. Overtaking is a skill and one you can lose, so sometimes I overtake simply for the purposes of maintaining a feel for what makes a safe but effective manouvre. Did it today and I was reminded how easy it is to fluff a quick 2nd to 3rd gear change in my Alfa if you don't place it carefully. No danger to anyone because I chose the spot carefully but a good opportunity to make a couple of mental notes.

This isn't a contradiction to what I said previously. The fact that most of us will be fairly useless immediately prior to impact doesn't mean that we shouldn't strengthen our schema where the first signs of trouble arise.

Of course its important that people don't start pushing when its unsafe to do so, i.e. every wet roundabout on the way to work. But I'm sure you'd agree basingwerk that too much margin/disengagement from first hand experience of risk can lead to complacency and dare I say it, rectum based thumb location.

I'm far from perfect myself - in fact, I'm downright crap at many things. I have to toe the line on these issues because I’m told it's the right thing to do, even if I don't always do the right thing myself. I think it's aspirational (not hypocritical). I can see why speed limits are there, and it's not too much trouble for me to keep them, and I advise others to as well. If someone chooses to break the limit, and then they get a ticket, I’m not troubled by that in the least. Practising on the roads might make you a better driver, but I’m not sure it makes you a safer one overall unless you are carefully about the time and place.

My problem is that, if I obey the limit, do I endanger others (who want to go faster) inadvertently? And if so, should I break the law and drive at the 85%-ile or whatever to accommodate them?

_________________
I stole this .sig

I assume that's tongue in cheek or a bit of entrapment?

The law should normally accomodate 85th %ile drivers. If it did they would not break the law through normal driving. Someone's got a sig that sums it up, about the actions of the responsible majority shouldn't be illegal. I can't remember who, so sorry whoever it is. But I love it.

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

It's a question of morality. Please answer the questions, Observer. It is simple enough. Do I risk others by never exceeding the speed limit? And if I do, should I break the law?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Indeed. Perhaps the best policy is to drive such that you never have to face that dilemma in the first place.

_________________
I stole this .sig

The moral responsibility to conduct oneself safely far exceeds the various duties to behave within the law.

But there could be fine moral judgements where for example, the increase in safety was tiny and the breach of law was great.

If the increase in safety is significant and the breach of law is small, then that's "no contest" surely?

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

Again, you righteously suggest what the system should do, rather than what it does. I agree that the system should be changed to optimise it, but now I'm talking about the system as it stands. Should one break the speed limit?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Do I risk others by not exceeding the speed limit?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Quite possibly. It depends on several factors:

a) How much of your attention is required to "not exceed the speed limit"?

b) Does your behaviour frustrate or inconvenience others to the point where they may be reckless or careless as a direct result?

c) Do you sometimes prioritize speed limit compliance above another more important safety factor?

d) Does observing the speed limit sometimes make you drive outside your zone of optimal performance?

e) If you risk compensate and drive more closely or more aggressively at the lower speed, is the risk balancing behaviour greater or less than any risk altering effect of the speed itself?

f) If you stick to the speed limit on a long journey, how much is the risk of falling asleep increased?

g) If you stick to the speed limit on a motorway, how much longer is your exposure to risk when passing another vehicle compared with the shorter time spent along side at a slightly higher appropriate speed?

There. That should be enough to be going on with.

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

I would suggest that no-one should set out to intentionally break the speed limit, but all should intentionally drive at the most appropriate speed (which is generally less than the 30 limit on urban roads round here, but on some ex-NSL it can be higher than the limit). Personally when those two conflict the latter takes priority and screw the limit, but that's just me. I wouldn't advise anyone else to since a) I have no qualification to, and b) there's probably a law against that , but let's face it, millions do so daily without a problem.

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

If you say that observing the speed limit requires too much attention, or causes inconvenience to others, or makes people drive badly, or makes you sleepy etc., then please take down your claims that you are not against speed limits and admit that you advocate speeding in some situations, else people will be able to conclude that your policy is incoherent.

_________________
I stole this .sig

THat's right, no-one should intentionally break the speed limit, and the more people who actually decide to do this, the better. So, I have decided not to break the speed limit. Is this wrong of me?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Not quite. No-one should be out there with the intention of breaking the speed limit, because staying within the limit should be coincidental. When I'm within the limit (much of the time) I haven't decided to drive under Xmph, it just happens that the appropriate speed is lower than a number in a red ring on a signpost. That's all.
Depends. Wrong in what sense? In a strictly legal sense I don't see how anyone could possibly say that's a wrong decision, but I suspect you really mean in a moral sense. If so, I can't give a definite answer. If, and I mean if, you would be safer not worrying about the limit and simply driving to the conditions on a second by second basis, then I'd say yes you're morally wrong, though perhaps not in a big way when compared to overtaking on blind corners or something. On the other hand, if you personally are genuinely a safer driver by sticking to the limits then no, it's not wrong of you.

But even if it's right for you I'm a long way off being sold that it's right for everyone else. We both agree that there's a TIBMIN brigade out there on our roads, and we both agree that things would be better if they started paying proper attention or stayed off the road. I contend that until we get them sorted out the last thing we want them to do is to be permanently worrying about their exact speed, what the limit is and whether that bush has a Talivan behind it.

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

I'm not against speed limits. A small but important percentage of road users need them desperately.

I am against an overemphasis on speed limits (both in "information" and in enforcement) because for the vast majority of responsible road users speed limits are unimportant.

The policy isn't by any means "incoherent". If you don't understand something (unlikely), feel free to ask questions.

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

I'm trying to square off your view that the speed limits are a good thing, yet by obeying them, we use up too much attention, cause inconvenience to others, drive badly, and get sleepy. I guess I’ll have to take it at face value that this is coherent, although it seems weird to me.

Perhaps you mean that speed limits are a good thing if people can sometimes ignore them? Yet this leads to a deeper problem - how can an ignorable limit can still be a limit? Surely a better term would be 'top speed suggestion'?

Other things seem odd. Should we explain to new drivers that the limit is a sporadically unenforced sugestion, so that they can choose what to think? Or should we tell new drivers the simple message that the speed limit in place X is Y mph? What advice do you have? More to the point, I would like to know if I am doing wrong by obeying the limit?

_________________
I stole this .sig