Safe Speed Forums

Actually, I don't believe they do interact in any meaningful sense. I am not aware that the RoSPA road safety arm formally canvasses the views of RoADA members either individually or collectively when formulating policy.

A significant proportion of RoADA members are also members of the IAM, who are attracted by the fact that RoADA, unlike the IAM, offers graduated passes and requires three-yearly re-tests, and therefore is regarded by some as a higher level of qualification. The impression I get is that the members of RoADA just get on with what they do, and shrug their shoulders at the stuff put out by the parent organisation.

As I suggested in the earlier posts, RoSPA proper tends to adopt a very prescriptive, regulatory approach to safety which is not necessarily entirely in tune with the concept of advanced driving.


On the contrary, I would say it is potentially extremely useful. If the government pursues a policy it is up to the government to justify it. The man who pointed out the flaw in the emperor's new clothes was performing a very valuable service and nobody was heard to say "so what sort of clothes should he put on, then?"

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

The page Paul links hasn't been updated since 2004. I'm not sure why thats relevant.[/quote]

relevant because the newsletters to members is a little more mindful of the dangers of placing all eggs in the one basket.


Maybe so (for at least a proportion of those drivers) - but surely they are less knowledgable and experienced than those who set the test?[/quote]

The standard is more or less set by the body itself and I am asked for opinions as a member. You derided IG - and he is probably the most experienced driver on this site as well - from each angle.



I don't think anyone disagrees - however, say that is easy - implementing it isn't. After all, how do you get people to take up the training when people tend to think their driving is fine?
[/quote]

Have already suggested carrots by way of insurance premiums and vouchers to help running costs..



By the way - do not have much time for "civil road engineers" as dealing with one oik who does not believe the cycle lanes he painted in Ambleside are a menace to cyclists, drivers and ramblers around here. Most would appear not to be as knowledgeable as they think they are

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

I didn't post that.





I'm genuinely interested in knowing, so please answer the question.



Where can I find info on this?




Perhaps, but not necessarily so.



That doesn't answer my question. Sure, it makes some people slow down, but how does this prevent accidents? I'm asking in all seriousness - I'm not trying to be funny.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Apologies.




Thats OK - I just wanted to make the point that alot of people here seem to claim to know it all - in which case I obviously wouldn't need to tell them eg by answering your question.

Briefly -

Accident sites are located by means of querying the accident database for significant clusters of accidents (eg 3 in 4 years)

The accident rates are then compared to the expected accident rate for the nature of the link/junction and AADT inflows (which are calculated by a mathematical model, which is simple but pretty accurate).

If the accident rate is higher than expected, then remedial measures would be considered. If not, then it is unlikely that the accident rate would be reduced unless either the AADT inflows or the nature of the link/junction were altered. Any remedial measures would likely simply change how people crash, rather than reduce the chances of them crashing (though this can be a worthy aim).

Long term accident data is analysed alongside site history and the individual accident reports (the main things to consider from the accident reports being the textual & diagrammatic reports, and the fairly-well-defined factors [which would include times of day, day of week, was it raining, was it dark]). Peaks, troughs and trends in the number of accidents may tell a story if they correspond with site history - if your number of annual dark accidents spiked the same year some anti-skid was laid and that number was sustained, then you may have found your problem, and an effective remedial measure.

What happens next essentially depends on the results of the desk study, but would involve site investigations to determine what issues exist and how people behave on site. From this remedial measures are proposed.

The proposed measures are then subject to cost benefit analysis. If they pass and funding is recommended, they then go on to the design process.




http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html gives an overview.

Admittedly - it relates to ABS rather than impact protection - however, they are similar in the sense that they both are only really apparent when the limits of the envelope are reached, or when a crash occurs (to borrow your phrasing).

And yes - it can also apply to any engineering measure, speed limits/enforcement included. The trick is to use the right solution for the right problem.



You've quoted a bit selectively there (hopefully for brevity).

If the drivers are failing to select an appropriate speed - you set the limit to tell them the maximum. If they knowingly ignore that, you give them a reason to obey it (eg threat of prosecution). Many will slow down to avoid prosecution, thus they will now be below (or at least less far above) the appropriate speed.

Of course, there can be issues like braking for cameras (and arguably the problem here is that people feel confident enough they will be able to see cameras that they chance driving above the limit then brake for cameras as they see them - perhaps they wouldn't take the risk if cameras were (sometimes) less hidden...)

I think you mean more hidden

But the current official line is that the effect of cameras is primarily site-specific, and therefore it is desirable to make them visible.

In the old days of "inconspicuous" cameras, what happened was that the locals knew where they were, but the outsiders didn't and were caught out. Most of us, most of the time, drive on roads we know.

As far as fixed cameras go, the cat's out of the bag now, and I can't see you'd ever be able to make them genuinely hidden.

Obviously mobile enforcement could be made totally covert, but that would simply make it a question of how many fish do you want to shoot in the barrel. I would expect the level of convictions required to make most drivers, most of the time, adhere strictly to speed limits, would prove totally politically unacceptable, and cripple the economy by banning millions of drivers.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Firstly, thanks for the other info - I'm sure it will make for some interesting discussion.

But I'm interested in establishing the relationship between speed and accidents - which is why I'm asking how slowing people down prevents accidents. Bear in mind that the accidents I'm referring to here are collisions between two road users for reasons not related to loss of control - not accidents such as running off the road on sharp bends, where excessive speed is obviously a very significant factor.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

It isn’t that “slowing people down prevents accidents”, but that “speeding people up creates accidents”. You have asked the same question over and over, so I can only assume you have some kind of mental block about it. The only way to remove it is by physical demonstration, using a common activity – coming down the stairs.

On Saturday morning, as soon as you get up and while you are still groggy, speed down the stairs as fast as you can (without looking beforehand to check if the kids have left their usual collection of toys, books discarded pyjamas and so on). With any luck, you’ll slip nearer the bottom than the top, so we can expect your reply the same day (rather than waiting for your return from hospital).

Then, next weekend, try the experiment again, only this time, come down nice and slow, like. This time, observe how the risk is dramatically reduced!

_________________
I stole this .sig

I propose we let the berk and ndp fight it out!

Oh, give it a rest, BW, will you!
The only reason I ask the question again and again is that I never get anything approaching a satisfactory, well thought-out answer - one which is robust and doesn't beg many more questions than it answers.
Least of all from you, with your inane musings which you love to repeat over and over ad nauseam Have you got a mental block or something?
I know you have a brain - why don't you do us all a favour and start using it.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

You're too old to drive properly, so what's your stake in this, Oscar?

_________________
I stole this .sig

I keep giving you examples, yet you always imagine that cars are somehow special. There is nothing special about driving – it’s kinda like walking, but faster.

I’ll give you another tip – a very pleasurable one this time. Go to the Llanberis Pass, and try walking up Crib Goch nice and slow. You will get to the top, and it will be a nice view if you are lucky. The next weekend, walk up Crib Goch in a real hurry. You might not die, but I’d make a will just in case – and take Oscar with you!

_________________
I stole this .sig

No problem



All else being equal, the faster you go , the less time you have to react to hazards ahead and the less able you are to take controlled evasive action (eg a car going at 1mph will be able to stop within a very short distance - whereas Michael Schumacher pushing his Ferrari to the limit would be committed to a given course and speed trace from the instant he pushes the brake pedal entering a sequence of bends - he would be unable to take any controlled evasive action if necessary).

Thus, the slower you go, the more able one is to change ones plans, and deal with a change of circumstances. Given the road environment is essentially uncontrolled (yes, there are laws and rules, but very little that actually force people to abide by them - even pedestrian guardrailing will be climbed over by some pedestrians), the likelyhood of needing to change ones plan to deal with a change of circumstances.



Well, excessive speed is arguably a factor in all accidents - after all, if the driver "causing" the accident was travelling slower they would have been better placed to avoid the accident eg by stopping. If they travelled at 0mph, the accident wouldn't have happened.

That doesn't necessarily mean excessive speed is the problem in all accidents of course - but speed is always a factor.

The question isn't so much one of how a driver failed to cope with their environment (eg by driving too fast) - but *why*.

My theory is that Basingwerk is ndp's Dad

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Nah. It's an illusion.

Drivers MAKE time to react. You can't give it to them.

See: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/timetoreact.html

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

ndp,

You fail to take into account the concept of 85th percentile speed, between 85-90th percentile speed you are at the lowest risk of accident.


Rigidly adhering to a council imposed 30mph limit on what a few years ago was a NSL road is not likely to reduce your risk of a crash, if prevailing traffic speed is higher than the set limit.

Driving significantly below 85th percentile speed dramatically increases accident risk. 85th percentile speed is often well inn excess of the posted limit.

I stongly disagree with your view point, 'excessive speed is arguably a factor in all accidents.

What rubbish!

Fine. Can you now put some figures to that? Let's say, hypothetically, we have a car doing 30mph. How much less time would the driver have to react if they were driving at the prosecutable threshold of 36mph instead?
And if a collision occurred, how much higher would the impact speed be?

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

And if you force drivers to travel significantly slower than they would choose to do, the extra time (and more) is just dissipated in inattention and distraction.

If you can comfortably type at 80 wpm, if forced to do no more than 50 wpm, you'll make more mistakes.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

From that link:

speed
If you have chosen the right speed to negotiate a hazard safely, speed does not contribute to time to react. This follows from forward planning. If the speed is too high to allow time to react then some other part of the safety system has failed.

So what to do when "some other part of the safety system has failed"?

And as I have said - it isn't so much how people are failing, but why.

Generally, yes.

What about at specific accident sites?



Cite?



Generally, yes.

What about at specific accident sites?



Indeed, as it often is on 30mph urban main roads. Yet no-one actually wants to either condone raising the 30 limit or condone breaking the speed limit. So what is supposed to be the way forward?

And if drivers are so good that the 85%ile speed is the speed drivers should be driving at, then why have limits at all?



Why? Stationary cars don't have accidents.

Thats not to say that excessive speed was necessarily the problem or that limits or enforcement would solve/reduce all accident problems.

Not at this time of night

I'm not sure what point yuo're working towards here either?



Of course, the prosecutable threshold is 30mph - anything above this can be prosecutued.





Depends on more than just speed.