Safe Speed Forums

My problem is the Is the focus on speed as the main driver (ha ha) of road safety.

I understand to need to keep traffic roughly at the same speed. Speed does not increase the likely hood of a collision, the increase in the density of things to collide into does. If you drive at 10 mph on an empty road there is nothing to collide into, so no chance of collision. If you drive at 10 mph out of my school there is 100 hundreds of pupils leaving at the same time, therefore I have increased my chance of a collision. My speed has not changed, only the density of objects I can hit. You have to manage your speed accordingly. (You slow down to give yourself more distance and therefore time to react.)

I believe road safety message behind speed limits has been lost. They should be there to keep the average speed of traffic the same and lowering it when the density of hazards increases. In my mind fully justified. If all limits where set appropriately it would be a good indicator about the hazards on the road, many times I dive down roads and the setting of a limit confuses me.

In both examples I ignore the set limit.

A: This is a 30mph road. Coton lane

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&sourc ... 7&t=h&z=18

Strangely enough if you are travelling left to right the limit increases from 30 to 40.
Even though there are more hazards.


B: This is a 40 mph road.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&sourc ... 7&t=h&z=18



Guess which way I ignore the limits.


Simply dropping the speed limits does not make roads safer, it just causes contempt for the limits that do matter. That’s why I like the COAST method of driving which we should teach people more your speed is a by product. People will make mistakes in judgement, that’s what people are like. But these mistakes may not be as costly as someone hitting someone at 30 mph because that’s the limit and there is an 80% chance that person will live anyway.

We both want to reduce the deaths etc; unfortunately we are looking at it from different perspectives

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

Greenshed said,



So no matter how many KSI Collisions that you have, you will always (once you get above double figures, unless it's an Hypothetical world) have MORE KSI casualties....what does this prove?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Greenshed said,



Not ANOTHER FAIRYTALE!!! .....So motorways and rural NSL, where, to quote you,...."The faster the average speed of all of the traffic", have MORE accidental collisions than urban roads.....REALLY???

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

When you drive at higher speeds on what "appear" to be empty roads something unexpected may happen and an increased speed will reduce the time to be able to react to that. Examples may be a deer running into the road, a mechanical fault, a health problem/event...the list is not exhaustive.
An increase in speed will always increase the likelihood of a collision. What you have described is a situation where speed has not resulted in a collision of one vehicle in isolation not the likelihood of a collision occuring in a traffic system.
They are 2 different things.

No it won't.
It will increase the probability of injury in an accident but will not [necessarily] increase the probability of an accident per-se.
As an aside, by your reckoning being stationary decreases the likelihood of a collision to zero. Try putting that into effect on the M25 in rush hour/s !
All things being equal: If all traffic was stationary there would be no accidents/collisions. But that is not because slower is better.

Funnily enough, various traffic management systems have been tried that effectively allow both pedestrians and traffic to regulate their own behaviour, set their own speed and interaction and generally get-on together. Minimal signs and traffic lights/crossing etc. They work very well. The "traffic experts" said they wouldn't. They do. Widespread use is unlikely though. Not enough control. No money to be made.
Government, both national and local, is the biggest impediment to improvement: In everything.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

You will find that it does if you read the research and proof of this. What would be your justification that it does not?

I'm not at all sure what "per-se" means but I looked it up and found: Intrinsically, by itself, not requiring any supporting facts or ideas, standing alone. Latin for, by itself or in itself.
In that case you may have used it to simply say you are right but don't know why.

You will find support for what I have claimed here: http://www.erso.eu/knowledge/content/20 ... t_risk.htm
I find that more compelling that your empty claim backed up by the latin for "cop-out"

Self regulating traffic schemes have their place but they are not suitable everywhere, perhaps that is why the lane markers have not been removed from the M25! Although in my experience they have little effect on the behaviour of some.

jomukuk is quite correct. It's not like we haven't already addressed this in this thread; indeed I responded directly to you giving some reasonable confounding factors (the 'justification'), you didn't even acknowledge it:



The majority of motorway users feel motorway traffic speeds should be increased (some of the others may be ambivalent); given your responses it seems you are in the minority – are you against doing what the majority is calling for?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

The speed in isolation has a relationship to risk and there is no problem with dealing with it in isolation, that of course doesn't take the other factors into account however the discourse with jomukuk was in relation to this isolated factor. And the relationship is clear as far as I and others are concerned.

You will have to use your imagination regarding why your submission received no acknowledgement although I believe it is quite obvious. It has nothing to do with my ability to respond by the way.

Greenshed said,




Very funny that you should say that because I always find that you disappear VERY quickly, when it comes to sustantiating your "fairytale " facts.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Of course there are problems, for the reasons I gave (such as displacement, or fatigue). In the real world, these things do not happen in isolation - that's why it is wrong to take these things in isolation. Take camera effectiveness for example: should we take the 'before and after' difference in isolation, or is it better to consider other effects like RTTM? In that case I thought RTTM alone is an extremely important factor to consider, don't you?


Oh yes, it is logically obvious (no need for imagination) why you choose not to acknowledge these logical arguments (and you certainly do have the ability to respond, but with your focus on what isn't important). It is probably (!) along the lines of your repeated evasion of my requests for you to say if you have any association with those who have been proven to misrepresent the effectiveness of their efforts.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

It may of course be because there is nothing of substance or value in what is being purported by members here, that is often the case, present facts and be met with unsubstatiated denial, that's usually the case of it.
Where are your professional or practitioner members? They are noticeable by there not being any.

What actually happened is that an unsubstantiated fact was presented (your 50% claim) and it was countered with a substantiated argument (the actual figures from a referenced source).

Is your "50%" claim a 'fact'? How come you've never once tried to substantiate it, despite repeated prompts for you to do so? Why should anyone accept such a claim as a fact? Are you an "expert commentator" ?


What I find more telling is that we know there are professionals/practitioners in our midst, yet they choose not to state their backgrounds, even when repeatedly prompted...

Do you have any association with the SCPs, greenshed?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

And what qualifies you as a road safety "professional", Greenshed?

A degree in sociology and having read a few reports, perhaps?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Greenshed you keep on talking about things in isolation, and how it does not equate to real world.

"one vehicle in isolation not the likelihood of a collision occurring in a traffic system."

yet you deal with one factor in isolation.....speed, with this one factor you are not considering a traffic system.

What if you have a poorly maintained vehicle? and the breaks fail when the deer pops out of nowhere but you where driving with in the limit?
What caused the accident Speed? Brake failure? Deer?
What if you where faster than the limit, what caused the cash?


All reducing the speed does is reducing the severity of the collision. Because in a traffic system there are many factors not working in isolation to cause a crash.

You see as a professional Science (chemistry) teacher I deal with complex systems, however I break the system down and look at parts of it in isolation and see how it works. (You know the dependant and independent variable.) I the hope understanding the complex system better…. It’s just good science.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

graball, you can't keep comparing urban roads to rurals and motorways.

It's like comparing swinging a sword in a field to swinging one in Piccadilly Circus.

When people talk about a higher and lower average speeds they mean ON THE SAME ROAD!

I am an off peak road user. There are roads around here that are chocka at 8am when I am not using them. However, it would be nice to use the same road at gone 11pm when I usually do at a higher speed than 50 mph

At the SAME TIME

On the aforementioned road, it used to be NSL. Then you could get a digger trundling along at 20, a truck doing 56 and a car doing, ahem 70. So there you have a 50mph speed difference between the slowest and the fastest straight away.

All the road users are never going to travel at the same speed unless that is you want to limit everyone to what a digger travels at. Or in your case a bike.

Nothing in life can be without risk. I think Wildy describes all this as the work of Kismet

On a rural road - we've always acknowledged the need to be COAST aware - with regard to animals (deer and farm animals) and the dippy bends/brows etc.

Endless list I do not think anyone is suggesting driving on these roads at well over the ton. Motorways - especially our patch of the A1(M) ... folk do reach some daft speeds and we usually nail 'em and hammer 'em for it I think folk are talking of being done for 5-10 mph -ish above lolly overall in this thread.

A mechanical fault? We know something can go wrong . but we've (Me ... MM and the wild ) always suggested doing one's best to avoid these by simply maintaining the car regularly and checking tyres/water/oil/etc each week and before any long drive in particular. Checking weather reports also comes under our brolly of PLAN (space and TIME ) Er ,, the solid common sense stuff which you cannot argue with

Health problem? Well even Wildy was not immune from this as all here know wrong place at tthe wrong moment and yes.. we did go down the "twisted angry route at first but came to terms with it. We still think and remember Ferdl (hit at 20 mph by a defective lorry) and count our blessings over still having Wildy here to be her dun loving norm


But all the same .. many of those would be the bad luck of "being in the wrong place and the wrong split second" and could occur at any speed Animals have been known to run into parked vehicles on occasion too... We will not deny that the speed .. the kinetic force .. affects the outcome - and we still know that driving in accordance with the COAST system does help keep a driver down to a realistic speed for the conditions.. a safety led one.. which may be below and may be just slightly above .. but compliant overall or on average and one which will give what we would hope to be enough time to anticipate and plan a reaction to any emergency.

_________________
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.

Average speed.

You take the speeds of the vehicles going down the road and calculate an average.

You don't include bicycles and diggers.