Safe Speed Forums

Many of you will know that famous strawberry blond petrolhead and Radio 2 DJ Chris Evans recently had to do a speed awareness course.

Of course this must have been seen by some as a golden opportunity by the "speed kills" lobby to gain a new convert and I am sure that all the stops will have been pulled out to make sure this became so, especially as the strawberry one made it clear he intended to report his experience on the course to his listeners.

Come the morning after his brainwashing he was true to his word, but something kept niggling me.

Several times mention was made that a pedestrian hit by a car doing 35mph was twice as likely to die as one hit by a car doing 30mph.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that this was based on an analysis of only 14 accidents but can't for the life of me remember where I read that. An internet search has drawn a blank.

Can anyone help jog my memory?

Surely the "road safety" lobby would not have us believe that reliable data such as this could be reliably extracted from such a small sample of events? That bit is me being a bit sarcastic.

I'd suggest that if hit in the right place ,or thrown the wrong way , speed makes little difference ( within the bounds of reason) .It always amazes me how much emphasis the anti speed lot place on statistics to prove their point, and blatently ignore any other evidence/stats that make their case as watertight as a sieve .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

I always like to point out that being "hit" at 30mph may kill, but being "not hit" at 35mph (or even 40mph) because the driver is watching the road rather than their speedometer is a much more important "statistic"!

mb

As i said, one which breakites tend to ignore .

But anther stat not looked at ,is how many jaywalkers/ folk stepping out into traffic are more pre occupied with something else ( like texting) , than looking for traffic. Perhaps we need a new offence for pedestrians ( and cyclists), "under the influence of a mobile"

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Or of course it could be perfectly logically (if true) turned on its head.

"If I walk out in front of a car doing 35mph I am twice as likely to kill myself than walking out in front of a car doing 30mph".

But let's not stray too far from the original question. Was this assertion really based on a very low figure of events?

And I could add that if it was, has any subsequent evidence come to light that might actually support it?

[cynic mode]Haven't insurance companies now got data to show that people who attend SACs have a higher accident rate than other drivers?

Is Chris Evans a baby killing maniac or has he become more aware of speed and thus safer? [/cynic]

The point of SACs is that you must show contrition for your "sins". The content is almost irrelevant. If you go along and argue the case for responsible setting of speed limits and enforcement you will be likely referred back to the cops and take the points. Much better to do a "Chris Evans" and show the world how bad you are. In fact, if he had said that the course was rubbish and a waste of time he would be in deep poo.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Could it be that the drivers caught by speed cameras are, on average, the less observant ones?

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

An opportunity missed methinks, alot of his talk afterwards wasn't even speed related just a good brush up on highway code & driving skills. Including the comment that some on the course thought it would be useful for most drivers.

Sadly no mention of what additional training drivers could seek without being forced by getting a ticket.

Yes, for fixed cameras but I'm not sure this applies to mobiles which can be positioned such that you can't observe them until you are targeted. Maybe you are referring to noticing speed limit signs?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I do not know the ratio of fixed to mobile events so I was hedging with the average bit.
I did mean in the sense of not spotting fixed cameras, however there is also an aspect of 'only exceeding the limit in the distance you can see to be clear'.

There are a couple of occasions where I turned out to be lucky after a nervous two weeks.

You definitely need to be aware of speed limits, they let you know you could get a ticket if you fail to spot the van.

Seriously though, if the insurance companies see a correlation between taking a sac and risk it would be interesting to know if the claim data discriminates between incidents, those where speeding is involved and those where it is not.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

Almost a throw back to the thing about youn tearaways being sent on overseas holidays, whils the decent ones stayed at home. Lets harp back to days of old .Drive at what could be considered excess speed ( possibly not even close to the limiot ) and there would be a fair chance of a tug, and an education .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

It's pretty irrelevant to driving speeds because it assumes that if a pedestrian steps out into the road the vehicle will not change it's speed.

If you are driving with COAST in mind then a pedestrian will not step out in front of you without you having time to react, they don't appear from nowhere.

They do on occasions:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/918562/

The problem with taking that standpoint is that if ever there is a collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian, you have to believe that by proper application of COAST principles, the driver could always have avoided it. I don't think that's a reasonable assumption (though I'm happy to believe that it certainly helps)!

I never said that.

I said he would never hit the pedestrian at his free travelling speed.

The whole notion of speed kills assumes that drivers go around with their eyes closed and never react to anything. This is simply not true.

And the idea that the same driver will have a slower impact speed if he is driving more slowly to begin with just does not work out in the real world. If you slow someone down they simply pay less attention to what is outside the car.

I'm not sure that's universally true. Whilst the slower driver MAY not be paying attention, you could equally say that the slower driver was applying his COAST principles - and the reason he was driving more slowly is that he noticed he was in an area of high hazard density. The fact remains, you can apply all the COAST principles you like, but that video clip clearly demonstrates that there ARE situations where you have (literally) no time whatsoever to react.

It might be useful to point out here that them there stopping distances on the back of the Highway Code are split into 2 segments.

The first is the thinking distance - time to react. OK this can be different for different drivers and even for the same driver on different occassions. I assume that some sort of average has been worked out.

The second is the actual stopping distance of the car once the brakes have been applied. Again this will vary according to car model/condition, tyre type, road surface conditions etc.

The point I am trying to make with this is that no matter what speed a car is travelling at, if a pedestrian decides to make a run for it across the road (some drunks are very good at this) and do so when the distance between them and the oncoming car is the "thinking distance" or less, then there WILL be a collision because the driver will not have time to even react. Even if already slowing there will be no time to push on the brake pedal harder.

So as we approach every pedestrian that looks like they might attempt to cross the road, what do we do?

Do we really keep slowing and slowing until a virtual standstill until we are almost level with all these pedestrians?

This could lead to a lot of tailbacks.

By the way, does anyone have an answer to my original post yet?

I have a suspicion that while they may have conducted some tests the quoted distance as one foot per mph was close enough and nicely memorable.



Again while tests may have been carried out, using 10mph/s as the deceleration was easy to to use and close enough.

Distance = Speed Squared/2x deceleration.



A couple of points-

The reaction time of a driver approaching a pedestrian they believe may move into the road is going to be much faster than if caught by surprise. You are already aware of the potential hazard and at the first movement there is no pause to think, rather a direct action to brake.

As part of your observation of the pedestrian you will be looking for signs that they are aware of your approach or making any telltale shifts or glances towards the other side of the road. You will try to maximise your distance from the kerb consistent with other traffic and adjust your speed should you feel that a lunge across the road may occur.

Almost the same thing applies to vehicles waiting to pull out from a side road.

I guess you know all that Just felt it was good to state why stopping distances and speed limits do not measure safety.

The only we should have to rely on 20 mph being slow enough not hopefully not kill a pedestrian is when one of them does something incredibly stupid, like the drunk doing a full tilt run out of a pub door into the road.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

Thanks Toltec.

I do already do the things that you stated, but more by instinct and motorcycle rider training rather than by anything I was taught whilst learning to drive. I should state there that I learned to drive at a time when the Green Cross Code was being drummed into everyone and it was not always seen as being automatically the drivers fault when anyone was run over.

What concerns me is that we now seem to have reached a situation where it is no longer just the drunks that lurch out into the road without looking and that more and more drivers are becoming focussed on their speed to the exclusion of all else. The drivers thinking "I am not speeding so everything will be alright" and the pedestrians thinking "I have more rights than those drivers, if they hit me it is their fault".

I find it rather worrying the amount of people of all generations now who will not look either way after they have stepped off the kerb whilst sauntering across a road at 45 degrees to its path.

Sounds familiar, I passed car and bike tests in the early '80s. I got my first car in the mid '90s having only owned bikes until then.

One key thing riding a bike teaches you is, priority and right of way is irrelevant , avoiding the accident is all that matters.

Bikes are much safer now, ride at 20mph and hitting a lamp post will not hurt at all

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

So are cars. But if you can anticipate trouble, then the pain of losing a NCB is more than the accident.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on