Safe Speed Forums

It isn't so. When I go to the trouble of providing a complete and rational argument, I consider it simple courtesy to deal with the argument - possibly by point out a flaw, or by accepting the thrust, or possibly by questioning a detail. That's fair, and I would be absolutely delighted to be proved wrong from time to time.

But what's happened in this thread. It has been a waste of time. I have felt annoyed - but it isn't disagreement that annoyed me - it never does. The thing that annoyed me was having my answers ignored.



If I have said "common sense" in that context it has been a shorthand. I actually call for trafpol to be given very specific guidance in this area:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speeding.html

But I stongly believe in common sense - we could solve an awful lot of problems with comon sense. As far as speed and safety is concerned, common sense isn't enough. It's a vast subject and common sense is not the tool for the national job. It may well be the job for an individual driver of course.

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

Fair point regarding kinetic energy, but that implies that the faster the speed the more dangerous the road. How then are motorways the safest roads, and yet small 30mph (or 20?) roads more dangerous?

_________________
--
uzz

Because they are built up, residential and you find learner drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, roundabouts, right hand turns, side streets, parked cars, traffic lights, pelicans, puffins, toucans, zebras, oncoming traffic, Gatsos (unless you are in patch - where you have my guys lurking ). And if you live near my mate Will - you also get the pretzel in the Panda (But not in my patch - OK!)

More hazards - the more danger!

Papaumau

it is quite clear from your posts that you do not understand the meaning of a statistical argument. Perhaps you would like to educate yourself before you continue on this topic. Try this link as a starting point:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/

If you are arguing the rather narrow point that 'impact speed kills' then you are wasting time - we all agree.

If on the other hand you wish to say that it is OK to base our road safety policy (a matter of life and death) on the 'common sense' that is 'speed kills' then be so kind and explain the logic and facts that lead you to this conclusion. So far you have described a logically incomplete argument and have supported it with lots of opinion. Not enough to 'rock the boat'

To paraphrase, common sense is a good servant but a poor master. It was once common sense that the Earth is flat amongst other things. And since you like your sayings, how about this one: 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'. Some people mean well, but 'do not understand the statistics'.

Regards,
arthurdent

_________________
DO NOT PANIC

I think you're being unfair there. Paul is in no way 'forcing' anyone to accept his argument, he is merely pointing out that papaumau's argument is fatally flawed and that papaumau has blatantly IGNORED everything that Paul has said. Sure, he may believe that he's right, but if anyone is guilty of trying to force an opinion on anyone it is Papaumau. He has provided very little evidence for his stance, yet religiously maintains that it's right. Paul may have the same fervour in his confidence in his stance, but he has bucketfulls of evidence to support himself with!





I think we have the crux of the argument here. Papaumau is saying that impact speed has a very direct link with how likely the accident is to cause injury, or to be fatal. Well, no one is denying that. In fact, we all accept it. It's impossible to deny it, as the laws of physics irrefutably confirm it.

However, the Safe Speed point (not trying to speak for the organisation here, just trying to offer my interpretation of what Paul has been saying) is that the impact speed is not significantly related to the 'free travelling speed'. That means, someone doing 80mph on a motorway prior to a crash and someone doing 30mph in a town prior to a crash are NOT still going to be doing 80 / 30 at the time of impact. A motorway provides a far greater period of time to assess potential hazards. One of the reasons they're safe is that almost always you will have sufficient time to slow down for / stop / move out of the way of any hazard. In town, hazards are liable to jump out (sometimes literally!) in front of you with little or no warning.

'Speed kills' - the emotive subject of many thousands of words, on this forum and others. The answer, in my humble opinion, is that impact speed kills, but that this does not correspond to the speed you were driving at prior to the impact ('free travelling speed'). Good driver awareness is far more likely to reduce your impact speed than sticking religiously to a speed limit.

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

Fair enough, but I'm sure that as time goes by and more pro 'speed-kills' disciples get to hear about this forum, the more extreme you'll see the comments get (no slur on Papaumau BTW, you are entitled to your view sir).



Common sense..the only thing common about it is that it ISN'T common, it's a nebulous psychological construct with no fixed datum that varies depending on who you talk to and what you are talking about.


EG, I assume that most of the smartly dressed individuals driving good quality new motors up and down our motorways would consider themsleves to be stable minded individuals possessing a reasonable degree of common sense. So why the heck do they pull off some of the more arrogant, rude and aggressive (and ultimately dangerous) maneouvres that we witness on virtually every journey we take? Perhaps it is because that when driving people often allow urgency, impatience, boredom (or whatever) to ovveride what one assumes to be their natural common sense. I say assumes because we don't know of course.

Absolutely - as a worthy generalisation. It can be extended too...

The more hazards there are, the slower people drive, yet the more accidents they have. Funny, that doesn't seem to fit the governent line on speed does it?

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

I rather doubt it, but I agree it's a possibility. Rational debate will always be welcomed, and opposing arguments frequently serve to assist in the development of understanding.

If we get tirades of abuse then the posts will just be deleted. So far about 3 or 4 posts abusive posts in the anonymous forum have been deleted.



Actually, "common sense" is frequently an expression of the safety culture. You've probably seen me banging on about safety culture as the road safety holy grail.

The "common sense" idea that speed kills has been massively fostered by government over the last decade, and since it is almost entirely false, I believe we should view it as a dangerous distortion of our national safety culture.

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

Give me common sense every time !

The government certainly do push their propaganda down our throats and there is NO DOUBT that the "speed kills" slogan is wrapped around a massive propaganda campaign.

It is also easy to say that the ones here who are grinding axes are dealing in exactly the same kind of propaganda in reverse.

This subject has been prone to the collection of data and statistics from varied sources over a number of websites.

It is contentious in its basic existence as the anti's on these forums see it as a government conspiracy to use a questionable slogan in order to extract more and more tax from them.

Maybe they are right here and the government ARE committing a massive hoax on the innocent roadusers by this propaganda.

Equally, to go hard the other way generates groups that become entrenched and blinkered to such a degree that it is the dogma that soon become the argument and the truth and the common sense by this goes out of the window.

I have always been suspicious of people that take a hard and uncompromising stance on ANYTHING as usually these people eventually find themselves lost in bigotry and can not see this fact for the blinkers !

I do hope that my OTHER view here has had some small success in making you all look at your leader's thesis of "Speed does not kill"

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558

But where on the SS website does it say 'speed does not kill', without qualifying it (i.e. by defining what 'speed' as 'free travelling speed'?)

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

I certainly don't believe that it is a hoax to extract money. Rather - and I have talked with some of these people - I believe it to be a "conspiracy of stupidity".

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/conspiracy.html

Please refrain from putting false quotes in my mouth. It's not very nice.

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

"Quotes" if they are not verbatim are open to interpretation.

If I have coined the "speed does not kill" slogan as a counter to the "speed kills" slogan then I am afraid that you are just going to have to accept the exact reverse of the original term.

There is nothing difficult in that is there ?

If you do NOT subscribe to the "speed kills" slogan then you must - by default - subscribe to the other !

I have simply, ( too simply according to some ), uttered the phrase that "speed at the point of contact kills" ( to try to qualify the original slogan ), as it is impossible to deny that the faster you are going when you collide with anything from a duck to a truck will determine how badly injured you are or how seriously dead you are !

This phrase, ( speed kills ), in it's qualified format is irrefutable !

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558

Yes, but what relevance does it have?

Nonsense. I believe all of the following:

Inappropriate speed for the conditions kills.
Speed in excess of the limit does not in itself kill.
Speed is not dangerous unless it is inappropriate.
You can't measure safe driving in miles per hour.
"Speed kills" kills.
Speed at impact in real world accidents is only distantly related to free travelling speed.
Speed at impact is most strongly influenced by degree of driver error.
Inattention kills.

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

Papamau

In case you do not know - am a BiB! Have attended more incidents that our esteemed host has written essays and spreadsheets! I know we have met you in the past - there are 28 in this family and they are all on-line somewhere! Just me and the mad doc on here for now as thought medical view and cop view would be reasonable balance - though the Mad Doc is more relaxed in his stance on speed than I am . And if you read his and my posts properly - you will find that we argue against improper use of speed cameras on balance - though not one member of this family, myself as trained Class 1 BiB, is neither daft nor dishonest enough to claim we never ever break a posted speed limit - because nobody - not even yourself in your fuel cell car or "milkfloat" can claim this!

Now I personally have seen things which caused me to throw up on site in the past - so I am certainly not going to argue that impact speed plays no part in outcome. Nor does the Mad Doc - he saw similar as junior before he specialised in his lurgies. The A&E member of this family has also treated some harrowing incidents as well. So not going to say that impact speed does not affect outcome. Nor have I seen on any site for "petrolheads" any really serious call for speed limits to be abolished - and those who have done have usually been "flamed" by us and others! It is more the improper use of the speed camera that Mad Mog, myself and the rest of the petrolheaded pussycats are outraged about. But you should know this - you have probably met the whole gang at some point - as they all know you (and refer to you as Papamouth ) You once had a marvellous conversation with the Sad Anorak (road safety nerd who is based in Germany and plays for the other team - but is really a dastardly double agent )

I would certainly support the mad Doc when he says driving without COAST is the real culprit in any smash regardless of speed. If COAST is applied at all times - chances of accident become minimised to almost zero. Majority see hazard too late, panic brake, have no concept (nor even heard of cadence braking nor have remotest idea as to how use ABS effectively!) But all this is part of COAST. Most do slow down so actual speed is lower on impact - but still too high in the more serious cases. The O is coast stands for "Observation" and to this family it does in fact mean Observe road conditions and the little lollipop that tells you the speed you are not supposed to exceed. But we do all know we may blip over due to polish on road surface, camber, crown of road, etc, and provided this blip is corrected - fine! But not so fine if the talivan is hiding! Not quite the same as my lurking in a side street and then swooping down and having to follow the chap for a almost a mile before I could book him! You would be amazed though how many failed to use mirrors - and that was icing on cake cos I got my collar and pat on the back!

Only accident I know of where COAST was completely absent and the driver did not slow down at all was the one which nearly killed WildCat (The Mad One's own wife.) She was stationary in jam on M/way. Driver suffered fatal heart attack/stroke and hit the throttle hard and his speed was even increasing when he slammed into my wild young cousin's car. he ws completely unaware as he was dying at time, and he went through his windscreen and through Wildy's rear. Fortunately, she had seen it coming and taken what cover she could! Mad Mog has already posted quite graphically the injuries which were inflicted on her. Strangely - she survived, and we will not deny we had some bad moments when we nearly lost her.

Now you may not know that the latest hype is to take youngsters down to morgue to see victims of road accidents. We lost one cousin in relatively low impact but heavy vehicle smash. The only people who saw his body wer those closest to him. We certainly would not allow any kind of voyeuristic intrusion on any one of us - should we be unlucky.
But -t hey tried this ploy on us years ago - Mad Mog is ex-Brake member - and he accelerated at very high speed out of being a Friend of Brake when he was asked if they could use photos of Wildy's injuries and her spell in wheelchair as part of a "speed kills" campaign. This is level the propagandists stoop to.


So Papamau - both mad Mog and myself have had professional and personal experiences of RTA and outcomes.

Our stance is quite normal - we want to see better training, more trafpols and less emphasis on a speed camera which does very little indeed to improve road safety. Incidentally, I could blind people with stats and Maths if I so choose - but there are enough confusing figures being bandied around without adding to them!

On this subject of 'speeding' two things have made me change my mind away from the "why the hell don't the whingers just shut up and drive slower" towards, lets stop driving this damaging wedge between the public and the authorities.
Firstly, the compelling arguments relating to what actually happens out there on the roads versus what people are told happen, put forward by SS. I just hope that the message isn't polluted by the actions of the extremists.
And secondly it's thought provoking, honest and above all moving posts from people like the one above; professionals who have been there, seen it, done it, felt the pain and picked up the pieces afterwards.
Excellent post In-Gear, well done.

I'm new to the SafeSpeed forums, but have been an avid SafeSpeed supporter for close to a couple of years now.

The quality of my driving has undoubtedly deteriorated in this period; allow me to explain why.

After being stopped by the police for speeding (very long story) I am now paranoid about speed as a numeric value. I don't believe in the speed kills message for a second, but I genuinely fear persecution. I am not a driving expert, however I have driven on average 40k/yr for the last 15+ years without an "accident" or even a "minor bump".

I now crawl about pretty much at the limits. I find my concentration withers much quicker and the number of "near misses" I encounter has undoubtedly increased. I also find that my driving manner causes other drivers frustration and the number of potential physical altercations has increased. I take it very personally when I'm plodding along on my motorcycle, allowing plenty of room for an overtake, yet the driver behind insists on sitting on my tail barely a couple of feet away. When they finally go for the overtake, you get the inevitable long stare, verbal debrief and more often than not, some sign language! All because I'm staying within the law. The confusing bit is, although I would never be as aggressive or imposing, I actually sympathise.

When I go anywhere with others in the car and we share the driving, my mates no longer want me at the wheel, it's actually a point of ridicule now. I actually don't enjoy it that much anymore, whereas I was a real enthusiast in the past and would often just go out aimlessly for a "run". Now it's more of a function, a means to an end.

I think my driving has become sloppier, I'm less observant and I no longer seem to anticipate to the same degree. I often find myself miles away in terms of thinking and not that focussed on the job in hand.

In addition I have become very cynical and no longer trust the police, whereas before it was not like that for me. If speeding were fundamentally dangerous why would the emergency services seek an exemption under the RTA?

Paul Smith is a hero in my opinion. He has worked tirelessly and presented his side of the argument in the most eloquent manner. If the answers are not staring everyone in the face by now, we'd be as well putting our brains in pickle jars!

The real crime here is that people are dying needlessly on our roads every day as a result of flawed policy. No Joke.

The General

Know exactly how you feel. I'm starting to wonder if we should all put big signs on the back of our cars saying "Obeying limit due to speedtrap phobia" - at least it might cut down on the V signs when people behind overtake.

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

Who remembers signs in back windows saying: "running in - please pass"?

I have heard several reports of back window signs saying: "9 points - please pass".

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

Okay here's a little exercise, I do it every day as part of my job most people do it as part of their everyday lives, albeit subconciously - it's called risk assessment.

Basic principles:

Hazard - something that can cause harm,
Risk - Likelihood that the hazard will be realised, often catagorised as High, Medium or Low,
Severity - how severe will the outcome be if the hazard is realised, often catagorised as High, Medium or Low.

Risk x Severity = Quantified Risk or Overall Risk.

So for comparison

Trained police driver travelling at 40 in a 30 limit with blues and two's:
Risk L Severity M/H (possibly even L/M) = Overall Risk L/M

New driver, drunk and travelling at 40 in 30 limit:
Risk H Severity M/H = Overall Risk M/H

So it would appear that the speed is a minor factor as it is only applicable to the severity of the outcome, not the likelihood (Risk) that it will be realised. This is just an of the cuff demonstration. You can work out RA's with numerical tables / Hazard matrices but it gets a bit messy to explain - Sorry !!!

I lost my fiance seven years ago to a drunk driver, the lorry he was driving crushed the car that my fiance was in killing her and her friend (the driver). At sentencing, the judge told the driver that the reason he had esaped a custodial sentence was because he was not speeding. When our law and our courts place speeding (or adherence to a speed limit) as more important than the deaths of two people, then we have a real problem !!!

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk