Safe Speed Forums

Yes - because they're closer to losing their license and so more likely to drive with their head in the dash rather than concentrating on the road

_________________
Will

We've done this before somewhere around here. Deja vu?

But, all things being equal, drivers with speeding points are significantly more likely to crash on average due to exposure. That's because points and crashes are highly influenced by exposure - in this case annual mileage.

The amazing thing about it is that many insurance companies DON'T load premiums for 1 or 2 speeding convictions DESPITE the fact that they are being handed an exposure proxy. This would seem to indicate that drivers with points must have fewer crashes per mile.

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

I would say 3-6 points is probably ok, risk wise.

Once you get to 9 points you know that a single slip over that speed limit will lose you your licence and job. Your attention to the road is reduced as more time is spent looking at the speedo.

Motorway trips become mind numbing as you stick to 70 on an empty motorway, but when it's busy you're usually constantly moving between lanes 2-3 as the average speed of L2 is 60 and L3 is more like 80 or 90, so you spend most of your time going around the MLOC members while trying not to piss off the reps in L3 too much, then moving back into L2, then back out because a lorry has cut in front of you, now you have a Vectra sat on your back bumper, but you dare not speed up to overtake the lorry a bit quicker.

Around town it's not so bad, but when you get onto the 40 and 50 dual carriatgeways (and some urban dual carriageways with a 30 limit) then once again you're looking out for the speedo rather than pedestrians, people pulling out of junctions etc.

I'd say you're definately more likely to have a crash when you have 9 points and completely for artificial and avoidable reasons.

I would hope that if you have 9 points you are going to be looking for speed limit signs more than before as it is pointless looking at your speedo if you don't know what the limit is. So it might actually lead to better observation all round.

But I suppose the conclusion that points and collisions are related isn't surprising. If you are not paying attention to road signs then probably you are not paying attention to other important aspects of driving. It is difficult however to see everything and although rated as a very good driver by the IAM I do find occasionally that I have missed a speed limit sign and I don't know what the limit is - if in doubt I assume it's 30 mph until I find out otherwise particularly where there are streetlights and no repeaters.

Speed limit signs tend to be elevated and to the side of where you need to look to observe and anticipate hazards. So, hunting for speed limit signs actually reduces the time for safety-related observation. With many signs hidden behind untrimmed vegetation, you have to spend a lot of your concentration quotient hunting them out so that you always know the limit.

FWIW, you need to know neither your speed nor the limit to drive safely. If you apply COAST (particularly the space and time bit) you will automatically drive at a safe speed for the conditions. Anything that takes concentration and observation from safety-related matters must reduce your ability to anticipate hazards, and so mean you drive less safely.

_________________
Will

Nicely put, willcove.

I would rather use my attention and concentration when driving on the dynamic environment around me. Any rapidly developing hazards need to be reacted to ASAP, and speed limit compliance comes at a price:
>> ongoing awareness of speed limit... distraction1Resource
>> ongoing awareness of current vehicle speed... distraction2Resource

AttentionResourcesAvailableForDynamicHazards = AttentionResourcesAvailableForDynamicHazards - (distraction1Resource + distraction2Resource)

It's not as simple as removing resources available for hazard perception, it's worse than that.


When I'm driving properly and not worrying about cameras, ask me how fast I'm going and I wont be able to give you a numerical value, ask me how many metres away a particular object is and I wont be able to answer.

Ask me if I can stop before reaching that object (moving or otherwise) and I'll be able to give you a straight yes/no answer.


Even simpler, imagine catching a ball. Does the cricketer know the exact numerical speed and trajectory of that ball and calculate it's landing position based on those figures, or do they just know from experience where it's going to land to within a few feet, then adjust as it gets closer.


It's a completely different way or thinking, a completely different and incompatable mode for the brain to be in. Windows 95 used to implement the 32bit API by "thunking" the calls down to the underlying 16bit API and 16bit code. You remember how crap Windows 95 was, well that's what strict speed limit adherance does to the brain.

_________________
Will