Safe Speed Forums

OK. Then that disposes of your previous argument doesn't it? Safety first.



I agree that "information" can only increase given the nature of technology and the wide perception of benefit.

I hope and I pray that we can learn enough from the present fiasco to use information much more wisely in future.

Are you alluding to something specific that you can talk about?

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

Scanning back, I can find no such argument. However, if you want my opinion, it is that safety is weighted highly, but unfortunately other costs of various forms are as important and HAVE to be weighed also. We can make everybody safer in their cars if we spend the whole national budget on it!



Let’s brainstorm! How about this:

Remove the IDs of the people caught speeding from the data. Then aggregate and trend the data. Then put the data in front of a judge, and tell him that 90% of drivers (or whatever the case might be) over the last x months have been zooming through this little village while the little ones have been going to school, and it’s time to clamp down on the cretins. The judge says either says get lost, and gets on with his next case, or orders the IDs to be put back in for the 10 worst offenders, who have to go before him and have the book thrown at them!

_________________
I stole this .sig

I know - it's a sin.



The tories started these cameras.



Hey, I like my booze! I quit smoking back in 98, but I loved fags, but it got to dear! Look, I don't want people doing "normal" speeds to get punished. In fact, I only want bad people to get pinged. But, to ping the bad guys back onto the bus, people who do "normal" speeds have to learn to stay within the limit. It's not that much to ask.

_________________
I stole this .sig

It was this:





I'm not entirely clear about what you're suggesting, but if you're after modifying the behaviour of the fastest 10% that's MUCH closer to good practice than anything we have at present.

It would be rather sad because we have nutters and experts in the fastest 10% and I'd hope we could also distinguish between those two groups.

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

Yes, I’m after rounding up the worst, rather than everybody. Also, with my plan, they could explain their relative competencies to the judge!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Good.



I think that's too late really. It's hard to know after the event if a behaviour was nutty or not, and it's possible that we'd have experts driving like nutters. A good judgement must take conditions into account.

We'd also have to be careful about conditions changing through the day. We might well find the day's fastest drivers on deserted roads at dawn (discounting Winter), but they wouldn't be the risk group.

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

So if 2.01 seconds of separation was deemed safe how could 1.99 seconds be deemed dangerous?

I agree that there would be an outcry if tailgating tickets appeared on the doormat.

Max

_________________
Tailgaters - Please Pass
You have an Accident to go to!

I'd guess that the prosecution threshold would be well under a second. Probably 0.75 or even 0.5 seconds. It'd be quite wrong to suggest that 1.99 seconds was dangerous, but equally 0.5seconds is very rarely safe or acceptable.

We'd also need to ensure that there was a continuing offence because otherwise we'd be nicking folk who had just been carved up.

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

We are missing a trick here. It would be mad to prosecute someone who happened to be close to somebody else on one occaision. That is unavoidable. The trick is to total up how close a number of close shaves are over a period. A computer can do that in one line of code! That way, you can spot the the cretins from the unlucky ones.

Look, the use of data to detect bad trends and ticket the worst of the cretins at relative thresholds is at least better than just blasting tickets out to everybody on the basis that they are all anti-social bums and deserve it. I'm moving way over on your direction here, by the way. I'm still not sure that harsh treatment isn't best!

_________________
I stole this .sig

I cannot for the life of me imagine why you think such an intrusive degree of monitoring is useful as a way of improving human performnce or behaviour. We'd all be nervous wrecks. Quality of life would be destroyed while we wondered what minor technical infringements we might be committing. Or let me put it another way:

Over my dead body, pal!



There might be a threshold issue. I'd give very careful consideration to a system intended to detect bad driving by counting emergency brake applications. If the violation is wild enough there would be few objections to detecting it.

It's this "life on the edge" thing that's the kiss of death to speed cameras and anything with a "trigger value" that includes normal behaviour.

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

Fear and distrust of monitoring has balked you. We have agreed that more monitoring is on the cards. In that case, should the data be used or trended? And what limits on it's use should exist? Asking for a return to the good ol' days is canutism.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Fear and distrust of monitoring baulks me! Trouble is that these monitoring systems using the most advanced gadgetry in the world are run by people! I gree you can't turn back time but you can fight it tooth and nail every step of the way

Max

I believe you are right in an idealistic sense. In a similar vein, I believe that some sort of psychological profiling and screening would filter out potential bad, stupid, aggressive,(or whatever) individuals from the system before they even got their hands on a driving licence.
Ultimately, there is a compromise to be drawn between what is idealistically attractive and that which is both practically achievable and socially acceptable.

The first limit on use of data should be net benefit. That'll probably kill it stone dead.



Not if you've gone down the wrong road and failed. In such a case returning to the last working system is just simple common sense. (Ask any Windows user! )

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

But don't many (most, all?) of the bad, stupid, aggressive, (or whatever) individuals already filter themselves from the system before they even get their hands on a driving licence by simply never taking their test?

And what is done about them?

Oh, they're already filtered from the system by banning them from getting their hands on a driving licence.

Well, that seems to be working well!

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

But so is noise from complaining, whingeing and moaning about cars.

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

My personal quality of life and the quality of the life of the country, socially and financially, deteriorates when you attempt to strangle the arteries of the nation through which the life blood of the economy is trying to flow.

Oh, and artificially curbing speed kills.

You cannot take away my right to address that intrusion.

Next.

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Oh yeah....really welll

<<<<--------<<< Whooosh



My post seems to have gone right over your head Mr Rigpig.

Or have I confused system with road system?

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Oh dear, oh dear, I feel that this discourse is going to get unecessarily tangled up and protracted but here goes....
I was talking about the system by which people get licences and engage in the activity of driving. Just like you appeared to be doing when you said..



So what were you talking about then?