Safe Speed Forums

Our recent poster, Ling, gave me this idea, which I hope we can develop, or nip in the bud if it really can go nowhere. Bear with it please. It's a bit shaggy-dog, but there is a point.

Case for debate - multi-point hypothesis:

• The large majority of drivers have little interest in pursuing their driving standards beyond that which they might reasonably expect to keep them accident and conviction free most of the time.
• The "standard" of such drivers - not bad, but by no means advanced, does not allow for the subtle observations that more advanced motorists make such as spotting areas of high hazard density, and is therefore, like "beginners", more reliant on speed limit signs as a heads-up of the need to travel slower. For eas of typing I shall call theses "Standard Drivers" (SD)
• Without speed limit enforcement of any sort, SDs will slowly drift up in speed as they get comfortable in given situations. This is a natural human reaction. Advanced drivers would do so also - maybe to a greater degree. However, the difference is that advanced drivers will slow back down again, preemptively, often to figures substantially below the posted limit, in preparation for areas of high hazard density.
• Speed limit enforcement, be it by preempt, immediate punishment or retrpspective threat of punishment (ie, electronic governers etc, trafpol or cameras) aims to kerb the degree to which SDs drift over the limit without the advanced observation necessary to do so safely.
• Without enforcement, only accidnets will ratchet down an SDs free travel speed on a given type/stretch of road. We need to keep the SDs speed to comfortably below the speed at which they are likely to fail to observe and deal with hazards in a timely manner. Ideally we'd do this by educating advanced hazard recognition techniques, but a good second best - and one much easier for the masses to latch on to - is speed governing.
• Therefore, whilst not wanting the 31-in-a-30 Brunstrom-like prosecutions, in order to avoid complacency in many of the large majority of SDs that might set in if they drift up in speed, without learning the advanced techniques needed to go hand in hand with a safe drift-up in speed, but nevertheless get away with it (as most do most of the time).

Ok - don't shoot the messenger, but I think the above is a summary of the thought process going on in a number of the "pro-cam" heads. In this thread, I'm going to endeavour to wear the pro-cam hat as a means to establish how blind the alleys SafeSpeed has identified as blind already really are. Let the flack begin

It seems to me that we need to consider two groups of 'standard drivers'.

Firstly we have the responsible majority of SDs. They tend strongly to reset their personal 'margin control' on the basis of 'far misses' and 'near misses'. They are fully capable of recognising that that they are pushing the envelope and do adjust to suit.

Secondly we have the much smaller group of blind/ignorant/reckless/incompetent SDs - and I'm afraid that their crash risk will follow them whatever speed they choose. For these, we need effective traffic police.

The behaviour of these folk is absolutely fundamental to road safety - they are the core of it. And as ever - and we know from average crash frequencies and severities - a couple of percent of knowledge or attitude is worth far more than lots and lots of speed controls.

I think it really boils down to an understanding of the 'time to react' issues.

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

Ok. Let's define groups for this discussion. I actually think four groups may help:

ADs - advanced motorists, perhaps with IAM or similar, Police class 1 trained, invariably alert and smooth.

SD1s - responsible but not advanced (who do occasionally push the envelope unwittingly, particularly if said envelope boundary is at a comparatively low speed and often within the speed limit).

SD2s - (those who are oblivious to hazards until they appear in front of the windscreen, and who are regulated almost entirely by the lollipop or unregulated)

RDs - reckless, often showing off, joyriders. Paradoxically may well have good car control skills, but deploy limited observation skills.

I think nearly all - including Ling, Cam Op etc - recognise that truly ADs are caught in the cross-fire of enforcement. It is to some extent understandable therefore that SS comprises several advanced drivers, not, as some would believe, because they've been/regularly caught out - their observation is such that typically they do not get caught out - but because they believe that the current inforcement is detrimental to driving generally. Let's park that one please. I am certain that it is detrimental to ADs, particularly if they get points and have to concentrate on the speedo which is alien to their otherwise safe driving, but for the purposes of this discussion, can we PLEASE concentrate on the other groups of drivers so...........

Q1UESTIONS - PERM FROM Does the present enforcement make SD1s and/or SD2s :

• safer or more dangerous to other road users in short/long term?
• more likely to learn/less likely to learn advanced techniques?
• Will it make those who do learn the advanced techniques slower to do so?
• Will it reduce fatal accidents by reducing the uninterrupterd free travelling speed of the non-observant drivers (who barely slow down before impact) or will it increase fatal accidents by actually increasing the number of non-slow-down accidents (perhaps regressing drivers from group SD1 to SD2?

Let's discuss please - and I remind - in this discussion, let's please try to park advanced drivers, who are almost certainly going to be adversely affected (by occasional points but, more importasntly, by dumbing them down).

OT:- Please stop putting a 'W' in front of 'reckless'!

OOPS - I'll go and edit. I should know better.

I'd like to add a further question:

Will we see greater improvementr in road safety if we can move some SD2 drivers up to SD1?

I'm sure "promoting" SD2s to SD1s will improve road safety. The supplementary series of course is how do we do it, and, more grass roots, does the present enforcement technique promote/hinder/hamper this advancement.

Instead of just fining people, how about forcing them to go on a Driving course? I believe most drivers aren't even aware that there is more to driving than pointing the thing in the right direction and pressing the forward pedal. Rather than people just paying a fine and having points which is just an immediate punishment which benefits no-one (apart from the obvious), forcing people to do a driving course will have longer term benefits both for themselves and society? IMHO...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

what about the RDs and SD2s who think they are ADS

_________________
now retired

I think this is a bit of a mistake. Sometimes it's useful to create groups or compartments, but reality has all the shades of grey. The groups are really ranges on the driver quality continuum.

So the right question in the same area is: Will we see a greater improvement if we improve the quality of the average (median) driver? And the answer is: 'Hell, yes!'

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

There are two main groups that behave like that. Neither of them are large (but that's not to say that they are not important).

The first is those who lack the experience to know any better. In part that is society's fault because we have not adequately defined to them what 'AD' means. The correct solution is an information based one. We need to help them gain the necessary experience as fast as possible, and send them messages that they still have much to learn.

The second are those with attitude problems. For them we need effective roads policing. There may be some or even many in the group who would respond to better information.

And when we do find someone in one of these (two) groups the best response will frequently be training. And if they don't want to learn from the training then we have to get them off the road.

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

I think we mean the same thing. I read the classification as a range anyway, with SD1s and ADs above the median and SD2s and RDs below the median. So improving some SD2s to SD1s necessarily raises the value of the median. I selected the SD1s because it seems to me that's where the largest potential lies for improvement in quality leading to increased safety. RDs need enforcemement (in addition to training) and SD1s are above the median anyway so improving them will not affect the value of the median.

Fair enough.



That's an interesting point that I'd not fully considered. However, it's 'naturally right' because the vast bulk of crashes seem to come from below the driver quality median.

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

This very important point dovetails nicely into another point that many (most?) people seem to find difficult.

Most drivers consider themselves to be above average. This is entirely possible, irrespective of the definition of "average" (geometric/arithmetic - or probably some others too, but not median as by definition median defines the point at which there are equal numbers above and below!). If the shape of the curve is such that the average has a few way down in the "bad" balanced by lots more just a little way above in the "getting good".

to take this thread further the British army team currently climbing mount everest, obviously the team are very experience mountaineers but there will be a heirachy of climbing experience,

do the party climb to the pace of the strongest or weakest member of the team, an old phrase springs to mind " a chain is only as strong as its weakest link", so why should driving be any different

there are 1759 members of Safespeed, lets say 1758 are of the advanced driver stage (i do not class myself as an advanced driver), does this mean that road policys are set to the minority or to the majority of drivers who may not be so highly skilled.

another one- a disco / dance / tea dance

we have John Travolta standard disco dancers all the way down the scale to a Mr blobby, how many of us hit the dance floor thinking in our heads we are of Travoltas standard but look like blobby or is that just the beer

_________________
now retired

Ithink (but am open to correction) that they will climb according to a master instructor. If they are to go up in one group, they will have to do so to suit the capability of the least experienced. However, with each run (or part of a run) hopefully there is educational intent. A better way surely would be to split the group into two or more streams. In skiing you have different colour runs, black being the most difficult. Mountaineering I assume has similar gradings for different climbs. The more experienced skiers will naturally want to stretch their abilities by choosing blacks; Motorists typically can't choose different runs going about their daily business.


I still want to leave ADs aside in this thread. However, the principle you are trying to rub in - I think - is continuing the chain/weakest link. Let's explore that for a moment, but lower the overall to a more realistic level. For a given group, there will be a small percentage of ADs, the large majority of SD1s, some SD2s, the odd chav (whom for this purpose I'll ignore), plus a small number of complete beginners - passed the test last week. I won't ignore those - everyone goes through that phase whereas thankfully not many of us go via the chav route in our life. Should policies be set for the beginners - make all motorists crawl at the speed above which beginners can't cope? I say not, but policy must allow for such motorists and accommodate them while they gain experience. Should policy apply restrictions to, say, 20 mph in areas where pedestrians might roam in case SD2s do not observe pedestrians correctly and scrub off no speed at all prior to impact with one who "suddenly" appears in their trajectory? Restricting to 20 with 100% compliance would, we are told, ensure a very large survival rate in pedestrian collisions. I say not because doing so engenders complacency in both motorist and pedestrian. However - and this is also important - this is a good starting point for beginners and SD2s as they build up their observational skills, be it with formal post-test training or just experience.

This one I'm struggling with! I am not quite up to Blobby standard myself - even with the beer