Safe Speed Forums

Thank you for your vote of confidence in my driving ability although I wouldn't claim to be anything other than average.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on the speed enforcement - I personally have only good experiences of speed enforcement, notably the reduction in speeding outside my front door in recent weeks / months.



I can't accept that because a lot of people choose to ignore a law it is right and proper to do so. In other places on this site there are some comments about young people having no respect, well if their elders choose which laws to respect what else will they learn?



I've never heard of a troll warning! It brings to minds warning signs on the road. So no, I've not had one of those. I've admitted to some faintly trollish behaviour and I apologise for all of that, I have to confess it's my sense of humour (my wife is firmly of the belief that one day I will be sarcastic to someone bigger than me and end up in a snotty heap). If it's any consolation I am exactly the same in real life as I have presented myself on t'interweb. And I don't take myself too seriously!

safeburglar.com was a joke, it was a poke at the world in general that if choosing to break one law was OK then it would be OK for all laws. It's called Reductio ad Absurdum (with an emphasis on the absurd!)

Lots of people have responded seriously, and for that, thanks. Mad moggy and in gear particularly.



Thankyou. It means a lot. I was starting to feel unloved!



sorry, I should have been more subtle. I probably deserved to feel unloved. I probably was feeling a little trollish to start with but I feel lots better now.


I wasn't talking about stopping time in my point, it was thinking and perceiving a threat. If they take the same elapsed time, the ground covered at 25% over the speed limit will be 25% more. Lets take a completely stupid example - thinking time in this example is 2 seconds. At a speed of 30 metres per second the thinking distance is 2 x 30 = 60 metres. At a speed of 37.5 metres per second the thinking distance is is 2 x 37.5 = 75 metres. 15 metres more.


I am doing so, I have done so, and yet I have still not been convinced that speeding is a good thing.



Thankyou, and yes, I made a bad choice of phrase.


I did this on the way home, travelling at a steady 70 on the Herts section of the M25. I chose a fixed gantry ahead, about the distance I would have seen a speed camera if it was bright yellow. I checked my speedo over 25 times before I got bored, which was before I pulled level with the gantry. This could be to do with the speedo design - at 70 the needle is exactly vertical (good bit of design that, if it was on purpose) so I didn't have to refocus. So I think my third of a second and no need to refocus still stands.



see my sums above. I can't see a fault in that logic.


It doesn't matter where the pedestrian was in relation to the start of my journey, it matter where s/he was in relation to my car when I first see them


Not all. Just about 98.75%!



See, we're not completely opposites!


You don't have to tell me that twice. Being a northener myself (only down here to take their jobs). We'll be back in the north in the next few weeks when the house sale goes through, and I can wave bye bye to the m25!



Thanks all for your time, apologies to all if I have offended. I promise not to troll (too much) going forward!

If a law is so widely disregarded, it does strongly suggest either that it is wrong, or that care is needed in enforcing it. For example, the widespread flouting of the law on cannabis is often advanced as an argument for relaxing that particular law and/or that it should not be enforced in a heavy-handed manner.


One or two completely unconstructive and abusive posters have been given a "Troll Alert" icon


I don't think people are arguing that speeding is a good thing, but that current speed enforcement policy is a bad thing. Not the same at all.

_________________
"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

If you are ever in the land of Oz I'll be happy to let you take mine out for some fun....

But sorry, I will not let you take it home with you.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

You have a cam outside your house? I'd be worried if the master bedroom was at the front then.




I think it is one of those funny instances whereby a speed can vary between just under to just over on any one journey. Trouble is - on a very slight cmaber or gradient - you can gain speed and not feel it because the increase is so slight. This is where you usually find the scams in Lancs in particular.

Depends on the quality of the parenting. We also foster children - or did until we adopted the two fostered to us long term.

But bringing them with good manners and road sense - and an open mind which is ready to question and improve things for the better is a start in right direction - even if they stick out their tongues at Steve's talivan twit



But - these kids (our youngest sons) are aged 7 and 5 and they check our speedos for us as well.

When we get to the motorway - these little boys shout GOING TUR-R-R- BO!

We have had the little talk about this




Pop over to PH and chat to my wife on there. She types exactly as she speaks on there! Lots of "Liebchen"


I am just as playful as she is though - in my own little way!




That's OK. It's a discussion - and I admit to driving above a speed limit on occasions - but am always vigilant and in my job - never stop learning - and guess it spills over into other areas of my life.

But basingmate is a similar sort - and he's starting to come over from the "Dark Side" to the side of the "Spe(e) di"




Whereabouts? If Lancs - you'll get to see what I mean at first hand.

Manchester? They have one good one - but this was a GMP one. Rest of the time - they get the signs wrong!

Cumbria - the JJs claim otherwise - but we see them hiding in foliage at times.... They wave at us now though! It's our kids and their tongues! Keep telling these two rogues that their faces will stick like that if they are not careful - but they just make their tongue touch their noses at this comment! And pull me an even funnier face!

North Wales - wish you all the best with your driving licence there!

I'm from Hawes originally and my wife is Swiss (half Wensleydale and half Appenzell - and both regions are renowned for creating stubborn folk.

_________________
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.

Funny you should say that Moggie, when my youngest (7) comes out on the bike with me, his favorite phrase is "Go supersonic daddy"

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

I'd guess that it'd only be a problem if he emulated Mr Fisk in the limerick..
"There was a young fellow named Fisk
Who, in bed, was remarkably brisk.
So fast was his action
the Fitzgerald Contraction
foreshortened his tool to a disk!"



For those with only the benefit of a classical education, the (Lorentz-)Fitzgerald Contraction is the apparent compression of an object along its linear axis when approaching the speed of light..

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

OK, now try it again at 30, 40, 50, or 60 - i.e. those speed limits which are far more likely to be enforced by camera, and where the difference between the speed limit and the prosecution limit (assuming ACPO guidelines) get smaller and smaller. A quick unfocussed glance at your speedo whilst doing 70 might well be sufficient (especially given that the camera won't be pinging you until 79 - that's plenty of room for error when determining the position of the needle), but will it keep you safe from being scammed in a lower limit where the speedo needle isn't at such a nice angle, and where the ACPO guidelines give you less tolerance for error?

The nice thing about the test Paul has devised is that it removes any "sweet-spot" bias, and requires you to focus on the dial every time. In your specific example here you've chosen a speed where, by your own admission, the speedo configuration allows for a rapid reading. So fair enough, your best-case time may well be 1/3rd of a second, but you still haven't proven that this is your average time given varying conditions.

If you can take your eyes off the road to glance at your speedo, record the speed that the needle indicates, and then look back up and refocus on the road ahead in 300ms then you are a record breaker Handy, because the tested & accepted response time of a human being to visual/audio stimuli is an average 200ms.

I know you claim that you don't need to refocus, but you are "refocusing" (which includes taking in all of the surrounding scenery once again) whether you want to admit it or not.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

I don't want to point out the obvious ... oh right, yes I do ...

300 is MORE THAN 200.

And reading the speedo is not a response to stimuli. If the speedo chimed at me to read it, then yes, that would be a stimuli.

There's no fault in the arithmetic, but the logic is flawed.
Risk is proportional to exposure, which is equal to time. In your example the exposure is two seconds in both cases, so the risk is equal.
People mistakenly equate risk with distance, overlooking the fact that the probability of being at a particular place on the road at a particular time is inversely proportional to speed.
So it's the thinking time that's important, not the distance.
BTW the above only holds true if the time between hazards is long compared to the exposure, otherwise you could argue that risk reduces to zero at an infinite speed.



But there's no way of telling that until it happens.
It could be a hundred feet, twenty feet, ten feet, one foot, anything - regardless of what speed you're doing.

Cheers
Peter

No, this is wrong. The vast majority of accident risks on the road are distance-based, not time-based.

See this thread, in which:


If, for example, you drive along a road at 60 mph, it does not make you half as likely to misjudge a bend and run off the road as you would be at 30 mph.

_________________
"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

I think you're getting confused by the terminology used. We're not talking about the same thing.
Location-based and distance-based are not the same thing.



Location-based accidents involve bends, trees and other fixed hazards.
Collisions with other road-users happen when two parties occupy the same roadspace at the same time, and it's these which I was talking about.
Pedestrians and other vehicles are not location-based, anyway - unless they're not moving. While it's true that you're more likely to encounter them at junctions and pedestrian crossings, they're only there at a particular time - and hopefully you're not also there at the same time.

Cheers
Peter

Do you actually have any sort of idea of how long 100ms actually is?


If looking at something is not stimulating the eye, then what is?
If you really believe your responses are that quick, then join me on the strip

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

If pedestrians and other vehicles miraculously materialised out of thin air at random locations, then you might be right - but they don't, they move into your path.

The risks of collision on a road journey are not generalised risks of random events, they are a sequence of specific risks associated with particular locations. For example, the risk of someone pulling out on you at a crossroads within the time you can stop is mainly dependent on the number of crossroads you pass. The number of pedestrians who may suddenly step out into the road in front of you depends on the number of pedestrians you pass. The number of vehicles with which you may have a head-on collision depends on the number of vehicles you pass coming the other way. However quickly you go, the time period of the "danger zone" will be similar - indeed, as you need more time to brake the quicker you travel, the danger zone will in fact increase with speed.

Obviously, in each case, if you had been travelling faster, you would have got there before the vehicle or pedestrian, but if you had been travelling slower, they would have crossed before you got there.

And you can only go so fast before you will be travelling more quickly than the distance you can see to be clear and will start having lots more collisions. If you travelled at the speed of light, you would not have zero collisions, you would splatter everything present on the road at the time you started.

A classic example of a time-based risk is the risk of your car being hit by a moving vehicle while parked. But if you are driving past parked cars, the risk of you hitting one depends on the number of parked cars you pass, not the time you take doing it.

_________________
"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

like, 0.1 seconds. 200ms is 0.2 seconds and 300ms is 0.3 seconds.

so 300ms is 0.3 seconds which is still longer than 200ms which is 0.2 seconds.

Where is the strip? Some special place for testing reading speedos?

BTW I also speed read, so I can read lengthy documents on average 50-70% faster than other people. That IS a skill that we can all learn! but it takes a bit of application and does not help whatsoever in reading an analogue display.

Peter, please don't patronise me.
Whether it was because I didn't write it clearly enough, or you didn't read it properly, or both, we appear to be at cross-purposes.

Cheers
Peter

I assure you I am not patronising you - simply explaining a view that differs from yours.


Unless anyone else chooses to enter this particular debate I don't see that it would be productive to take it further.

_________________
"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

Like, duhhh - big yellow box threatening my licence up ahead.... Is that stimulus enough??

It's the only reason I can think of for looking at my speedo and not at the real dangers present....

Yes, I've already addressed all those points many times over in the past, so I don't see the need to repeat them.
I gave a specific answer to a specific point from Handy.
I don't need to be told the obvious.

Cheers
Peter

Santa Pod in Wellingborough and Shakespeare County (formerly Avon Park) in Stratford Upon Avon are the main two.


You don't have to worry about looking at your speedo, your speeds & reaction times are automatically recorded for you.
If you feel you do have time to look at the speedo, then you really should consider changing up in to 2nd gear


I too can also speed read, but like you say, that particular skill has no bearing whatsoever in reading an analogue display or the time it takes to do it.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?