Safe Speed Forums

Without the protocol (which is embodied in the highway code), we wouldn't even be sure what side of the road to drive on, so I rate it more highly than you.



Studies suggest that 'cultural norms' strongly influence behaviour. The stigma associated with drink driving did not come until it was perceived as being well outside the cultural norms. Over-Leniency has allowed speeding drivers to perceive themselves as within the cultural norm - that is why they whine so much. Drinkers, on the other hand, calmly accept their lot because they feel they have acted outside the cultural norm and are duly ashamed.




Yes, my order of priorities is first to myself, second to the road users I'm currently interacting with and lastly I pay heed to the effect my driving has on the cultural norms. This is the key argument against your ideas. Of course, I also pay heed to the cameras, so I don't get pinged, but this is no overhead because the other concerns usually mean I'm within the law anyway.



Then you are taking no heed of the effect your driving has on the cultural norms, and may be unknowingly contributing to the general decrease in respect for the law.

_________________
I stole this .sig

I think drink-driving is now socially unacceptable because there is clear evidence that drinking whilst under the influence of alcohol is unsafe. The same can't be said for exceeding the speed limit, hence the "whining". I'll happily share the road with someone who thinks 80 on a motorway is an acceptable speed, I'd be FAR less happy to share the road with someone who thinks driving after downing a couple of pints is equally acceptable. Driving at a particular numerical speed which just happens to be above another particular numerical speed decreed by the government as being the legal limit isn't inherently dangerous, driving with a blood alcohol level above the limit that medical expertise tells us causes impairment IS inherently dangerous.




If the majority choose to break a law, is it still a law worthy of respect? However, this isn't to say that breaking the speed limit is necessarily the start of a slippery slope to total anarchy and lawlessness - despite what Brunstrom and his acolytes would have us believe, I'm no more likely to commit murder, GBH, theft etc. just because from time to time I deliberately drive at a speed above some arbitrary value set decades ago. I continue to respect those laws which are worthy of respect and where there is a clear case for having such a law. I find it a lot harder to respect laws which are either flawed right from the point of creation, or through lack of reassessment have become flawed/no longer relevant in their current form with the passage of time.

No way - drinking under the influence of alcohol just makes you more drunk. There is clear evidence that driving after alcohol is less safe than driving without alcohol, but it is pointless to say it is categorically unsafe, because you could end up in hospital after any journey by car in any condition because driving is not safe per se. We are talking about acceptable limits here, and I think you agree that cultural norms play a part in deterring some drivers from drinking, or some drinkers from driving.



If 'inherently dangerous' means 'automatically' dangerous, then I argue that it is. By driving blatantly over the any legal limit, you damage the driving culture. Indeed, in this single respect, it is worse to speed than to drive slightly over the limit, because your driving may not be impaired significantly enough to allow other drivers to perceive that you have been drinking.



Yes, because those breaking the law are not the only stakeholders. First, by breaking the law, you are endangering drivers who do not break the law. Second, persons not driving at all and incapable of breaking that law are also endangered by your actions. So yes, you should respect it because all stakeholders set it in a political process and you are bound to that when you use your licence to drive.



See above about how laws are made. Shoplifters don't like the law, murderers don't like the law and bad drivers don't like the law. Unfortunately, of the three sets, bad drivers whine about it the most.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Yeah, that's what I meant...



True, but if we consider the risk levels involved in normal driving to be acceptable, the risk levels involved in drink driving do then, relatively speaking, appear to be categorically unsafe.




So what makes 71MPH automatically dangerous, but 70MPH not? Nothing. Even 10MPH can be dangerous given the wrong conditions, and 71MPH, 80MPH, 90MPH can equally be safe given the right conditions. The ONLY difference is that someone, several decades ago, decreed that 70 was LEGAL and 71+ was not.




I agree with your point regarding perception, but I disagree with your conclusion. You're still looking at it from the "driving culture" point of view. I prefer to look at it from the point of view of me being behind the wheel of my car when another vehicle becomes a factor in my safety. If someone is blatting along at some truly stupid speed, then I know to get the hell out of their way. If someone is driving, apparently safely and competently, whilst drunk, I have no indication that I need to stay clear.




I'd still be endangering them if I didn't break the limit...



Ditto...




As with drink-driving, there's a bloody obvious reason why shoplifting and murder are illegal, and even if they weren't legal I strongly suspect human nature would mean they were still only carried out by a minority of people. Speeding is not a minority offence, you only have to spend a few minutes observing traffic on just about any stretch of motorway to see that for yourself. The public are voting with their right feet and sending a pretty clear message that they don't regard mild speeding as a serious issue, given an appropriate stretch of road.

However, of those three examples, public opinion (rightly or wrongly) is that a disproportionate amount of time and effort is being spent in catching the driver who has the audacity to marginally exceed the limit, and the reason for this time and effort being expended is being sold to us through the use of increasingly unreliable statistics. We're fast becoming a nation sick and tired of being lied to by authority figures, of seeing the country appear to slide ever further down the crapper, with the average citizen being ever more put upon by rules and regulations which the criminals and ruling classes freely ignore. So really, is it any wonder that respect for certain laws, and the authorities that enforce them, is diminishing amongst people who would otherwise be fully in support of the legal system?


Please note that I'm not in favour of abolishing speed limits, just for a national reassessment of the existing limits taking into account improvements in vehicle and road engineering since those limits were chosen, and for a more consistent national approach in setting limits for a given type of road - a driver should ideally be able to instinctively know, to within 10MPH, what the speed limit is on any stretch of road anywhere in the country without having to look for a speed limit sign. I'd still be quite happy for the blatant speeders to be prosecuted, but as it stands at present we've got a system which has the potential to criminalise the majority of motorists, and which appears to be operated in a way that implies revenue generation rather than safety is its primary objective, and that can't be right.

Actually, I'm 100% certain that it's the modern overemphasis on speed enforcement that's damaging the culture.

Safe driving absolutely depends upon appropriate speeds (irrespective of the speed limit), yet we are tending to replace "safe speed behaviour" with blind adherence. That's really dangerous!

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

How does that happen? Now - you are not suggesting that drinking makes me (hic) drunk, now - are you? (Knew I should not spent more than NonnyPlod spends on a night out on that bottle of red.. .. )

Alcohol in the bloodstream affects your cognitive and motor responses - have already described this in detail on this forum! So has IG! The more alcohol in the human machine - the deeper the intoxication. Add drugs into the cocktail and




Not one member of this family would even consider getting behind driving wheel after one drink. Metabolism would dictate that we would be safe - but there will be a slight impairment even so. We just choose as family group not to drink anything alcoholic before driving.



.

More people in A&E from DIY than RTA/C. basingwerk - life is not safe. You could end up in my hospital being treated by me just by getting lurgy - which you can pick up by shopping, meeting people by chance, having unprotected sex .... The virus you pick up could decide to affect your heart - and this can mean heart/lung transplant A lurgy could affect your brain....liver....kidneys.... virility You do not know how dangerous life is ! It is a killer Life just ain't safe - Tarnation! Bums!



Those TV adverts played big part in alerting of overall danger. Trouble is - large number have taken to chancing that extra drink and then driving the car. Because - there is less likelihood of geting copped - and of the RTACs coming into A&E - too high a percentage of testing positive. PC Gatso is not very good at copping these people, nor is this tin pot cop capable of copping uninsured - even if he pings them , copping defective vehicles, tired drivers, or taking account of any traffic conditions.




With Twister here - I can adjust my driving (COAST) to defend against speeding numpty, allowing him space to overtake me - for example. Keeping lane discipline, not getting into lather because he is driving faster than I am .... However - speeding "numpty" may be skilled driver who applies COAST and adjusts to match my slower pace, ensures that his overtake is smooth and safe, slows to safe speed on perception of hazard such as lights, roundabouts, pedestrians, school building, church, pub....

A slightly impaired driver may be driving at speed limit - perhaps even 2mph below speed limit. But his reactions will be slow - even if slightly over the limit. He may not be able to react as quickly as Mr Speedy. Hence - he is more dangerous.



But if we all drive with eyes open - applying COAST - then small overspeed is not too big an issue. In any case - the slight blip of 10% + 2/3 is, in itself not endangering. There is - of course - very big difference between a silly and dangerous overspeed on busy road which does very much endanger all, and the minor blips above a speed limit.



Again - slight overspeed blips should not endanger anyone travelling as passenger in a car.

However, there should also be an obligation on pedestrians and cyclists to adhere to the guidelines in the HC. These people who simply run across roads with undue care, jay-walk, moonwalk, play chicken, etc should be held to account if driver ends up placing himself and passengers in danger whilst swerving to avoid them. This also creates unnecessary danger for all. (Wildy had a jay-walker today - ca 16 metres away from a zebra - she saw him, stopped, gave him space to cross, passenger in the car at time says Wildy just smiled and waved him across, did nothing aggressive (not her style), and he hurled a beer can at the car - fortunately - it will T-cut out ) But really - people should be taught how to cross a road safely and to use crossings where provided even if it means a little walk to them.



Hmm! Some areas in Lake District - speed limit set by 7-8 blokes in the village pub....not that political a process then. Dalesmen fixed some of theirs the same way - but speed limit is not enforced quite as sadistically according to my brother who lives up in Hawes! Our chief scam wally here is a real zealot . He likes his foliage! A proper health freaky muesli munching lentil veggie burger guzzling Gauleiter! Grr! You can spot him though - right at the speed limit changes! Or at the bit where it is safest to overtake ...Only good thing about this - we know where he is likely to lurk - and go the other way!



Thou Shalt Not Steal and Thou Shalt Not Kill - these laws were part of Ten Commandments. Besides society has always shown its disapproval by prison (and even death penalty in past.) But in the case of theft - courts now appear to be lenient to laughable degrees whilst drivers who stray a tadge above a speed limit on clear empty road, harm no-one get a compartively raw deal. Fines, increased insurances, potential loss of licence, employment prospects, mobility for a very arbitrary minor blip - which is all about 80% of the three million or so copped by camera are "guilty" of.

Not exactly a fair system.

Not seeing much evidence to support " cameras' saving of lives".

Encouraging good road user practices by whatever means at disposal should be first and foremost in "Road Safety Prat's" minds - and this is not achieved by simply hiding a van in some foliage near a speed limit change, not reducing a speed limit and whacking up a scam to enforce it.

Which is why these people are getting angry!

MadMog would seem to want an allowance above the speed limit that makes speed enforcement only for those that are about 25 to 30 % above the limit. Very convenient. That means about nobody gets done for speeding then. Wise move.

Come off it, you cant believe that some country yokels set the speed limit in a village, what boat did you get off.

you seem to be coasting us some tree me old mate, climb down quick before you fall.

_________________
It's Champion Man

Don't see a problem with that myself. The prosecution thesholds would be 37-39mph in a 30 zone, 50-52mph in a 40 zone, 62.5-65 in a 50 zone, 75-78mph in a 60 zone and 87.5-91 in a 70 zone.
Of course people would still get done for speeding. But this way only the drivers who are really taking the piss would be targetted instead of those just barely over the limit.

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

Not such a daft lad

[quote=Champs]
Come off it, you cant believe that some country yokels set the speed limit in a village, what boat did you get off.

you seem to be coasting us some tree me old mate, climb down quick before you fall.[/quote]


This is set in Lakeland folklore! Not messin' 'Tis true.

Village is called Ings. You will pass the talivan hidden behind some foliage on A591 just past the 40 mph sign as you drive in direction of Windermere.

We all know it is there - except the tourists!

You cannot make it up! It is surreal!

[quote= itschampionman] Happens in North Wales too. Pontblyddyn to be exact. [/quote]

Just doesn't need 7 or 8 people in a pub, one will do. Especially if she owns the pub and is a local councillor.

Until recently the A541 was an NSL dual carriageway leading into an SC . Half a mile later a 40 that continued through the few houses that constitute the village. The centre of the limit is a badly laid out staggered X road with the A5104 at Pont Blyddyn with the pub on the corner. There have been a few accidents involving seriously drunk people and a few minors at the X roads. But last year the pub landlady who barely drives herself apparently campaigned singlehandedly for a reduction to 30 to 'reduce accidents' and the usually emotive nonsense. In the current climate it seems Flintshire CC Highway Dept are happy to restrict the 40 to 30, and the rest of the road to the next village over 2 miles away to 50.

Of course the police and Arrive Alive supported it - more chance of revenue !!!!

That sounds quite bad. Presumabely, the drunk people were knocked down by cars zooming by, and the children were crushed down by heavy fast cars in the road.



It's not good for business for your custmoers to be crushed down by heavy fast cars on the way home from the pub.




I know that road from Mold to Wrexham - its a death trap narrow road winding through a valley.



For the landlady, yes, because her customers now survive the trip home and can go back the next night!

_________________
I stole this .sig

I thought you meant children, when you said minors! I thought 'callous swine'! You mean little little bumps, don't you. Sorry

But wrt your other point, accidents involving seriously drunk people, perhaps it is not enough not to ban drinking when you drive. Perhaps 'drinking when other people drive' should also be banned!

_________________
I stole this .sig

bw, your last point is excellent. I've waited weeks for you to say something sensible!!!!!!

Doh Basingwerk

Try engaging your brain before putting your hands into gear



Obviously you don't. Its not narrow, it does not wind through a valley, and on the length you mention there are 4 separate stretches of dual carriageway. I'm interested in your emotive comment that its a death trap though. Where does that perception come from ? Myself I have driven more than half a million miles in and out of the UK and it has never occurred to me to describe any road as a death trap. Incompetent or more likley drivers lacking in experience and confidence might. There are badly laid out junctions that require a higher than normal level of care in negotiating such as the A541/5104 junction but thats it.

Check
http://www.arrivealive.org.uk/f3/ to see what Arrive Alive have to say. In their typically misleading style they claim " Between January 1998 and December 2000 111 people were injured or killed on this route: then

3 people were killed
13 people were seriously injured
95 people received slight injuries

then

10 were children
5 were pedestrians
2 were pedal cyclists
4 were motorcyclists

The map indicates where the deaths occur. I understand that 2 were occupants that failed to negotiate a bend and crashed reportedly DUI. I'm told the other death was a motorcyclist collided with a car at a bend. A few of the serious and slight injuries have occurred in minor accidents due to people pulling out at the x roads in front of others on the A541. Lets face it most minor crashes result in someone going to casualty 'just to be on the safe side' or even to start the compensation chase. That can be a serious injury stat.

While pedestrians at night have been involved perhaps even walking from the pub I'm also told that its the personal perception of the good councillor of the traffic rushing through her village that is behind the speed limit.

Now, now mate. Drunk cyclists are hell. Could give you veritable essay as to how muesli and lentils react with alcohol badly. So could the wife But let's keep things light hearted As for the drunk pedestrian with the gammy leg as well ...... we should introduce laws immediately to deal with "walking whilst under influence and with "dangerous parts"...

Seriously - landlady has responsibility to ensure customers are lucid enough to stagger home safely - and parents should ensure child is conversant with Green Cross before allowing them out alone.



All the more reason why she should refuse to serve them as soon as she realises they are in danger of being unable to stagger home safely

Oh - forgot - she is thinking of short term profit - like the Pratnerships



I am also familiar with that road - on way to (Wildy's cousin) Scamera Shy's pad.. Bit like our own NSLs up here. Mate - it is question of training - not simply fining folks for a moment of silliness. All we are teaching is resentment - but we are not getting people to realise why OTT overspeeds on some rural NSLs are not safe... But we are all responsible for our own safety - and I still say each person - whether on foot, on two wheels or on four wheels or even four legs - has to take responsibility for ensuring their own safety.

Please do not get me wrong - mate -- I like to drive my cars fast - but I exercise common sense. But my argument is that I am no robot - and I could get copped for a nonsensical blip - given that I live in Cumbria and have to travel through LanCASH£re... Also - despite the zero tolerance - KSIs have increased. A Lancs cop on PH even admitted that one road in Blackpool had KSI involving bike and car a few weeks back - despite the forest of scams on this stretch. So - this policy is just not working - is it...



So - two sources of revenue here. She should of course refuse to serve anyone if she is unsure of their safety. Hypocritical of her.

Some years ago after a staff party a fairly drunk Gatsobait and a couple of fairly drunk colleagues were walking home, accompanied by one extremely drunk colleague, who I'll call Extremely Drunk in the interests of anonymity (he didn't remeber any of this the next day, but he could be reading it now for all I know). Fair do's, none of us were walking in a very straight line, but Extremely Drunk couldn't even stay on the pavement , or remember where he lived . Rest of us began to sober up rapidly at this point, as we could easily see him falling into the path of a car. Next car that passed along happened to be a panda, so we waved like mad and stopped 'em, explained that Extremely Drunk kept falling into the road and would probably be better sleeping in cell than cooling to room temperature in the local A&E. Plods said there were only two things they could nick him for. Drunk and incapable, which would apply if he couldn't walk at all, and drunk and disorderly, which would apply if he got violent. Extremely Drunk was neither, so they couldn't really do much.
In short, yes, sure as hell there needs to be some sort of "walking under influence" law. Some poor sod could potentially have killed themselves while swerving to avoid Extremely Drunk in the road, or he could have been killed himself.

Legal duty as well, isn't there? Still, happens all the time, and pubs rarely have licenses revoked over it. Actually, I'm not sure if that is grounds for refusing/revoking a license, but anyway, there's little chance of publcians getting any comeback for letting their customers get as bladdered as they please.

Did someone say she's a councillor? Yep, thought so. No bloody wonder she can serve people till they're legless without licensing problems.

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

Don?t be a chump, Rich, I lived 5 miles from there for a quarter of a century!



Check it out on Multimap ? it?s called the Alun Valley and Avon (river) Alun runs through it!

huge url hidden by SafeSpeed to fix page width problems



Are you absolutely sure that you always heed this advice yourself?

[SafeSpeed: I edited this post to fix page width problems by hiding the very long url]

_________________
I stole this .sig

I would have no problem with a jay walking law, but this also brings up the question of SafeSpeed's rule :



If a driver had hit your friend, according to the rule he could NOT have driving at a speed that allowed him to stop comfortably within the distance that he knew to be clear. Indeed, one of the reasons I am so fervently opposed to SafeSpeed's simple rule is that it makes no account of drunkenness and other random events or stupid behaviour. The only speed at which a driver can be sure that they can stop within the distance that they know to be clear is stationary, because things can happen faster than a driver's reaction time.

It seems that the rule doesn't work in these cases, so it should be modified to give some level protection against this kind of random stupidity. I think the top speed limit is the right way to do that. The rule should say:



After all, the penalty for having a few too many on a Friday night should not be instant death. And of course, this level of protection is statistical in a sense, because it relies on the probability of death at (say) 30 mph versus 50 mph. It doesn’t stop people who drive over their own children at 2 mph while backing out the car, so whatever you think up will be a compromise.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Glad to hear it. All road users, including pedestrians, have a responsibility to behave
correctly, yet the law we have does not impose any sanctions on one group of road users.


Perhaps, but that's being very one sided. Yes, a driver would have had a responsibility to
be aware of what's going on around him, and in that situation be prepared to take action
in case Extremely Drunk fell into the road. But equally, Extremely Drunk had a
responsibility to avoid putting someone else in such a position in the first place, and by
his actions he reneged on it. Of course, that's a moral responsibility, and as such is only
the way I feel about it. AFAIK his legal responsibility was about bugger all, which is
ridiculous.


Well, if by 'safe' we mean 'absolutely zero risk', then yes, the only safe speed is zero.
Still, that's a bit contrived isn't it? I could come up with a situation where zero isn't safe
either, the middle of a level crossing for example.

In reality we all know that the value of safe speed is always a variable, both from one
road to the next, and even from one hour to the next on the same piece of road. I think
Safe Speed's rule is simply trying to reflect that important point. I interpret the phrase
"the distance that they know to be clear" to mean the area which I can reasonably
expect to remain clear. If I can see someone staggering about on the pavement outside a
pub, I can't honestly say that I can reasonably expect the road to remain clear, can I? I am
aware that, although currently clear, it might not stay that way. So I reduce speed, cover
the brake, position the car further from the kerb etc. To my mind that's part of the rule
too. You can hardly expect me to park up and wait until he's sober, can you?


As I said above, I feel that to an extent this is implied anyway. Sure, it's not perfect, as
frankly drivers should bear no responsibility for the random stupidity of others. To use a
gruesome analogy, if I covered myself in offal and jumped into a shark tank, would any
rational person blame the sharks for what happened next? I'm bright enough to know that
such behaviour is dangerous, so the responsibility would be mine alone. That analogy
only goes so far, of course, since drivers are much brighter than sharks and should be
expected to be alert to the possibility of stupid behaviour. But being alert to the
possibility is not the same as being responsible for, which is close to where we are at the
moment.


Yes, it will always be a compromise, but it should be one that encourages self
responsibility in the greatest possible number of road users. At the moment there appears
to be little or no compulsion for pedestrians to use the roads in a safe manner and with
consideration for others, and that's absurd. If I pull out into the road from my driveway
without looking I am guilty of driving without due care and attention. But if I step out
into the road from the same place I am guilty of what? Well, gross stupidity, obviously,
but is there anything I can be charged with?

You say the penalty for a few pints too many should not be death. Fair enough, but in
reality you are running a risk of that happening. Penalties are a human invention and
may not bear too much resemblance to outcomes. The penalty for being stupid enough to
insert metal objects into a live plug socket should not be electrocution, the penalty for
cleaning a shotgun muzzle without first ensuring that it's empty should not be having an
ounce of shot hit you in the face at several hundred miles per hour, the penalty for
walking around Salisbury Plain in front of the Royal Artillery in the middle of a live
firing exercise should not be getting blown into 1,039 pieces. The penalty for lots of
stupid actions should not be death, but life isn't always concerned with penalties. Of
course people need to be made aware of the risks of a particular action, but they must also
be made to take responsibility for the consequences if they go ahead and do it anyway.


And on a completely unrelated note, what’s going on with these pages stretching across
like this? Do I need to get a wide screen monitor now?

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

There is much in your response that I agree with, but it is interesting to
me that the dangerous actions you listed, i.e.



are all subject to strict legal licensing arrangements and mechanical
obstacles. Electricians needs to have served a proper apprenticeship and
have the right papers. The holes in the sockets are covered with a
hard plastic case with spring loaded shutter gates to prevent it.

To own a shotgun, you need papers signed by a magistrate and you need to
store the gun in strict adherence to regulations that can be checked
by an inspector at any time. To walk around Salisbury Plain in front
of the Royal Artillery requires you to bypass closed and locked barriers
and ignore many signs and even ignore a row of bright red flags hoisted
up on great flag poles.

Yet to get knocked down by a heavy fast car, all you need to do is step
or stumble at the wrong place and time. That's a bit heavy, I reckon, but we
have become so used to having great lumps of ugly, oily iron blasting along
through our tiny, winding village roads that we don't even recognise the
risk anymore - that's how dumbed down the road lobby has made us.

I don't know what you do for a living, but if, every 5 seconds or so, a
one tonne slab of steel hurtled through the room at 50 mph in your
workplace, it would not be right. So why should it be OK right outside
the pub and houses in tiny Pontblyddyn, which is a nice welsh village
in a pretty valley blighted by heavy traffic trying to avoid the proper
route via the A55?

_________________
I stole this .sig