Safe Speed Forums

I couldn't agree more - so if the 'other thngs' cause 250,000 crashes a year, so does scanning the speedo?

If you asked me to make a dead serious guess, I'd say that camera distractions are likely to be worth at least 10 deaths per year.

I'm not worried about speedo checks in general much. I AM worried about EXTRA speedo checks.

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

Most drivers - even those very conscioous of the speed limit - will only do "speedo scanning" when they believe it is safe to do so. HOWEVER, combine the speed-limit-conscious motorist with a camera and you've forced a Pavlovian speedo-stare just at the wrong moment.

As Paul rightly says though, the surprises that cause us to brake at a rate harsher than normal are fewer and further between the more we spot and take heed of the subtle signs that speedo-scanning inevitably partially suppresses.

huh? I think it's nearear 1,000. I would not have supported this campaign to the extent I have for 10 lives pa. Or have I misunderstood? Do you mean the acute distractions - Pavlovian distractions if you like, as opposed to the countless other chronic distractions that it is so difficult to attribute to anything (but that I'm certain, at least in part, a large part, is camera policy)?

Sorry - that's supposed to be 'speedo distractions'.

I'm certain that bad policy, itself founded on speed cameras is costing over 1,000 lives per year.

The 'speedo distraction' thing is one smaller side effect out of at least 40.

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

Phew - thought I was losing it for a minute

So, in order to maintain consistency, the next time we have a debate about sat-nav, mobile phones, shaving, eating sweets etc etc you will be arguing about their crash causing potential as vociferously as you have been in this thread
And we won't see any PRs lambasting the police for pulling some who was drinking a can of coke or eating an apple then?

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

It's 100% consistent Riggers.

Drivers MUST manage their own distraction. As the workload of driving varies so does the driver's capacity for doing other things. Cruising on an empty motorway is fine for speedo watching or sandwich eating.

In fact 'managing distraction' (or attention or concentration) is a key driver skill.

But the speed cameras programme denies us the right NOT to look at the speedo on occaisions when it may be far safer and wiser not to. So, for example, and let me tell you, on the approach to a known dangerous junction I wouldn't dream of looking at my speedo UNLESS they put in a speed camera. And when they do put in a camera I am denied the right to manage my attention towards the dangerous junction.

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

Just to be ultra pedantic here smeggy (did you expect any less?)...but a "Brisk walking pace" by a 79 yr old who recently suffered from a heart attack and had drink problems 4mph...would likely cause another heart attack!
No, IMHO the driver got away scott free (by reason of 'funny handshake' or incompetence on the part of the investigating officer whatever) and the example as shown does not lend any weight whatsoever to the S/S argument that looking at your speedo in a S/C zone is dangerous. To me all this shows is that this driver mowed down a 79 year old and BLAMED the action of looking at his speedo to be the reason for his lack of Observation.

Just as drivers have a responsibility to take care and operate their vehicles safely, so the authorities have their own responsibility to create a safe environment. These responsibilities are independent.

If the authorities squander precious driver attention by their actions, that doesn't absolve drivers of their responsibilities, but it does indicate a serious failure by the authorities and it does mean more dead people. Which is EXACTLY why we're here.

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

Just chucking the word 'rights' in there doesn't add any weight to your argument you know. I've tried using the line of reasoning before, with respect to motorway workers and village dwellers, only you don't seem as willing to recognise their rights as you do the guy behind the wheel.
If drivers were really as good as you think they are at managing risks, they would manage the speed camera risk more effectively wouldn't they? If they don't, then neither do they manage the sandwhich eating risk, mobile phone using risk and all the others very well either. And I know from my own experiences which I believe to be more worthy of attention.
In sum, I feel you are over egging a very, very small pudding here at the expense of under egging ones which would give us far more benefit. Oh, and afford other drivers the right not to have to take preventive or avoiding action upon spying yet another cretin whose in-car distraction is causing them to lose control or concentration.
Thats my final word on the subject, promise.
Fill your boots below.......

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

To be even more pedantic: I didn't use or assume 4mph in any calculation
In fact the used speed was 3.35mph (I did say 1.5 m/s), this being significantly less brisk.


I simply don't understand how you came to that conclusion.

It’s worse than that. Drivers will indeed manage their workload away from such enforcement sites; however, at these sites all the drivers will be distracted together - all in close proximity to each other. The positive effect of drivers compensating for the poor actions of others will be substantially reduced because they’ll all have their focus elsewhere.

They key question, then is 'which pudding is the biggest'?

With fatalities running at once per 100 million miles, and the knowledge of a extremely high likelihood of a very dangerous crash if drivers simply shut their eyes for 20 seconds, I ask you: which is the bigger pudding?

Everything in road safety is underpinned by the individuals recognising and managing risk. Department for Transport is ignoring this obvious fact to our enduring peril.

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

But RigPig, you're missing Pauls point. He IS standing up for the rights of the Village dweller and Motorway worker, because he's fighting to ensure that drivers can pay more attention to these folks instead of looking at their speedo's whilst driving through roadworks/villages. I don't see how you missed this point, it is pretty obvious what Paul's saying - you're just choosing to ignore it.

As for drivers not being much good at managing risk - again, I believe this is part of Pauls campaign, driver training has been sacrificed so people are getting worse at deciding what to check/not do behind the wheel. Looking at your speedo is taking the emphasis off the other things, as much as you seem intent to protest it, it's simply a fact - see a camera, people will 1) auto brake and/or 2) check their speedos... whilst an innocent driver behind them nearly slams it to the back whilst checking his/her speedo.

Paul & SS acknowledges that driver skill has gone down, which is the core of it's campaign. In order to increase driver skill again, and make people capable of managing risk properly, the focus needs to be taken off worrying about getting a NIP for slipping over what are very often too low speed limits - and instead have them concentrating on the road and hazards around them ALL the times.

-----------

Finally, eating / phoning whilst driving RigPig - the Police/Gvt seem to accept that taking driver attention away from the road is bad and so prosecute/fine/points for these 'offences'. The same should apply for forcing people to speedo watch. I also happen to very much agree with the idea behind phone ban, I'd say a very large % of people can't mobile + drive to 75% of their usual capacity at the same time. I know I can't and so don't do it - that's because I'm can choose not to. The same can't be said for distracting myself to monitor speed through cameras though, that's forcing my attention away from the road.

5 posts in and you think you are in a position to tell me which points I'm ignoring and missing

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

It is surely self-evident that more rather than fewer speedo checks is, all else being equal, an undesirable additional distraction from the crucial second and third elements of safe driving - Observation and Anticipation.

There is no doubt that drivers should be able to manage their speed so as their driving is not adversely affected by speedo checks. What they should be able to do is one thing, what they actually do is what counts.

As others have said, the significant (in the sense of important) potential additional risk is that the presence of a speed camera may cause drivers to carry out a speedo check at a moment when, in the context of the actual hazard situation existing, they would otherwise choose not to. The effect of that may be negligible or not. However, as there can be no serious doubt that the potential for significant adverse effect exists, it sure as hell should have been considered, tested for and measured as a possible adverse side effect of camera enforcement. I have seen nothing that indicates that this (or any other potential adverse side effect of camera enforcement) was identified and considered.

No doubt?

- What speed are we really trying to manage? Legal compliance? Or a safe speed according to the conditions? I'm finding it ever-harder to see legal compliance as a key driver skill - it's more a waste of precious resources in many (but by no means all) practical cases.

- For a driver with good 'pitch' (in the musical sense) driving a manual car with an audible engine maintaining a speed without reference to a speedo is easy. But for a tone deaf driver in an automatic car with a slippy torque converter and a quiet engine it is simply impossible. Most of us fall between those extremes, 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

I wasn't really discussing a position on which type of speed (safe v legal) needs to be managed. I was simply looking to acknowledge that the definition of the attributes of an 'adequately skilled' driver will include the ablilty to integrate speedo checks to the extent necessary for safety and for awareness of compliance (or otherwise) with legal limits. I don't think adequately skilled drivers will be distracted by speed cameras to an extent that has a measurable adverse effect (although the increasing incidence of frequent limit changes and 'unnaturally low' limits certainly makes things harder).

It is of course debatable what proportion of the driver population is "adequately skilled" by that criterion; thus the reference to what drivers actually do, not what they should do.

I bridge them.

I am plagued with perfect pitch; I also drive a slushy silent automatic