Safe Speed Forums

Wearing my moderator's hat I have considerable sympathies with Rigpig's position. Nevertheless, in future, please try asking for moderator assistance before launching into a flame attack.

Bogush, Rigpig has a point. The disagreement has been based around a misunderstanding caused by your posting style. Please try to be a little more brief and a little less ambiguous in future.

Anyone posting a flame in this topic at this point WILL BE BANNED.

I'm determined to do whatever is necessary to run a very high quality forum. We have an opportunity here to lead the development of the next generation UK road safety policy, and I don't want to see that important work disrupted.

Let's all try to be positive and non-confrontational, and to discuss the issues with the greatest possible degree of clarity.

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

I take it that this doesn't, however, mean that we all have to agree on everything - that would be boring and also achieve nothing.

Regards
Peter

Apologies Paul and Rigpig.

I find that summarising what I see as the salient points in a long and complicated argument in a series of bullet-points and then discussing any detail that needs clarifying in an ongoing exchange the easiest way to develop the "argument".

I keep forgetting that others see this as "having" an argument.

However, in my defence, I would try to claim that if I was to "try to be a little more brief" this would make it even harder for me to be "a little less ambiguous in future".

In fact, I would go so far as to "argue" that to "discuss the issues with the greatest possible degree of clarity" precludes brevity.

But, as ever, I'm probably wrong on that score too.


But I'll try again, in a less "confrontational" manner, to introduce some clarity into my original points:


I understand that you believe that psychological profiling could be used to identify those that might be dangerous or inconsiderate drivers and the results of those profiles could be used to filter them out from the driver training and licensing system which could lead to a safer road system.

However I would have to disagree with you on several points for several reasons.

Firstly, what psychological profiling could be used? For example some people believe that those that oppose speed cameras are dangerous speedophiles. However research indicates that those that object to speed cameras are the most likely to comply with them whilst those that avoid or evade being captured speeding, or believe that they don't speed, seem to support them. This research would appear to be borne out by the empirical evidence that those most likely to caught by speed cameras are the local residents who campaign for speed cameras, and the politicians who support their campaigns, who seem to get caught immediately the camera is set up, on the one hand, and high mileage safe experienced drivers who get caught eventually. Of course those driving illegally past cameras, or dangerously away from them, never get caught (regardless of how many times they get caught on camera). Neither do those that speed up to cameras and slam their brakes on for them before speeding away.

Secondly, 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? Or perhaps by paying someone to take the test for them. Don't forget that it is estimated that 10% to 20% of people on the road are estimated not to have insurance. And just think of how often the driver in an accident is reported to be under age (and therefore, I would have to assume, not licensed), or to have been punished by a ban despite not having a licence in the first place. Clearly, therefore, in my mind, attempting to filter out these people from the licensing system isn't going to filter them off the road system.

Some might argue that this 10% or 20% is only the tip of the iceberg of aggressive dipsticks they see driving around. But do they really see every fifth, or even every tenth driver acting like an aggresive dipstick? Psychologically you only notice those that stand out, and good driving doesn't stand out. You only notice the aggresive dipsticks you see driving around, and so "every" driver (other than yourself) appears to be an aggressive dipsticks. If you were to sit at the side of the road and record how many vehicles passed you, and how many of those were driving like aggressive dipsticks I would venture to suggest it would be less than 10%, never mind less than 20%.

But what is done about these 5%, 10%, 20% even of aggressive dipsticks? Nothing. They often have enough time to cause utter havoc before they get caught and banned.

So, filtering them out of the licensing system at the start doesn't filter them out of the road system. When they are on the road system (whether licensed or unlicensed or previously banned, or banned before even getting a license) there is nothing to stop them driving like aggressive dipsticks and causing havoc.

So, what is the system we have at the moment? The aggressive dipstick drivers causing havoc on the roads self filter themselves out of the licensing system to start with. They cause havoc on the roads. And when (if) they are eventually (ever) caught: what is done about them?

They're already being (officially re)filtered from the licensing system by banning them from getting their hands on a driving licence.

Well, that seems to be working well! (Apologies for descending into irony here).

I would suggest that filtering cannot work, because it can already be seen not to work. This leads us on to what should be the question we should be addressing. How can we get these aggressive dipsticks off the road before they cause (too much) havoc. I would submit that the only way is to identify dangerous, inconsiderate, or whatever, drivers in the act as psychological profiling cannot be relied up, neither can observation under "artificial" conditions (driving test) be guaranteed (if it is actually sat in the first place).

One possibility is to have driving monitored by government officials, either on the road, or reviewing CCTV, to identify clearly unacceptable driving. Drivers who don't come up to the required standards could initially receive cautions, and then be tried before a jury of their peers (experienced drivers). Sentences could reflect the severity of the offense, general standing of the driver, and his "criminal" history. They could start with suspended sentences, and go all the way through to long prison terms.

I know that this might all sound quite revolutionary. But it might work.

I would welcome constuctive comments on my post, be they in agreement, or not, with the general thrust of my argument.

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

Apologies if my failed attempts to clarify my position have rubbed you up the wrong way Rigpig. However, might I respectfully request some clarifications on your part?


I don't recall a Rigpig from Piston Heads. What name do you go by on that forum?


Sorry, but I'd always understood that the whole point of an argument was to win it (and that that entailed getting the last word in, unless the last word was an admission of defeat). Perhaps it's my cultural background. I keep forgetting that the British believe that it's the taking part, not the winning, that counts.

Is that why the "British" always lose the arguments over new roads, by-passes, speed cameras, development, their own traditional cultural pasttime of fox-hunting, etc, etc? Could it be that their oponents are arguing from a different cultural standpoint? I wonder what that might be?

I'll leave you to have the last word in the interest of peace and harmony:

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

Actually, I'll let you have the first word as well:



By the way, did you ever read my post(s) on PH where I pointed out that I merely held up a mirror to the other posters.

I couldn't be held responsible if they got upset by what they saw.

Opps, there I go again, slipping in the last word!

Not a good idea.

Reflecting on it.

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

Of course - all opinions are welcome

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

I suspect that local road planning systems are out of control. That might seem high-handed of me, but the evidence suggests to me that many of their interventions do not work because the law of unintended side-effects makes the solution worse than the problem they set out to solve. This is true in every town along the coast of north Wales, where road planners have been at it with their bag of tricks. Are they making the best of a bad situation, or is it all knackered up because they are making work for themselves to sort out later?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Should our goal be to identify the bad 20% with 100% accuracy? What tolerance for error is acceptable?

_________________
I stole this .sig

What we are lacking is an effective "proxy measure" to identify that worst 10% or 20%. I don't know whether any research has been done on this.

We know it isn't speeding, as we know the people who choose to travel in the 90-95th percentile speed range are actually the safest drivers on the road.

Arguably, in free-flowing conditions, if you selected those in the 96th-100th and 0-5th percentiles, you'd get the 10% fairly accurately

_________________
"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

Please explain more about this. What is the 90-95th percentile speed range?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Randomly measure the speeds of 100 passing vehicles. Then rank them in order of their speeds. The fastest one would be the 100th centile, the next fastest the 99th and so on. Obviously in a real world example you'd look to measure a lot more than 100 vehicles, but that illustrates the principle.

Research would seem to indicate that the top 5 (96th to 100th centile) would tend to be tearaways with a high accident risk, but that the next fastest group tend to be the safest drivers of all.

Note that this is not to say that driving at the 90th centile speed will in itself deliver low collision risk, rather that the drivers with the lowest collision risk tend to choose that speed. A subtle but crucial distinction!

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

If you express the speeds of all drivers travelling along a road as a series of statistical values, the top 5% (by number) is the 96-100th percentile, the next 5% is the 90-95th percentile.

For more information, see:

http://www.sense.bc.ca/research.htm

_________________
"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 this were so, then a direct approach would be to analyse speed camera output and punish the top 5 percent, which may catch some expert drivers but not enough to inflame public opinion.

Would this work? Also, if this were policy, should it be made publicly known, or should the formal position of the authorities be that all speeding is bad and will be detached?

_________________
I stole this .sig

I suppose I'd begrudgingly admit that it might be better than the current approach, but the problems that would then arise are:

1. It's very hit & miss - whilst the top 5% might statistically be the dangerous drivers, that might not be true of any specific sample,
2. It would make a massive reduction in the amount of revenue raised by cameras, probably to the extent that they'd no longer be profitable. Therefore it could never happen under the current regime.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

My view is that, as far as possible, traffic enforcement should be carried out by actually apprehending the offender at the time of the offence rather than by sending tickets in the post. For speeding, this would inevitably lead to a relatively high cut-off point being applied.

If cameras are to be used, then the trigger speed should be set with reference both to the limit in force and the the 90th or 95th percentile speed before the installation of the camera.

It is generally a bad idea to make administrative tolerances public as this leads to them becoming in effect cast in stone and may lead some people to campaign for them to be reduced.

_________________
"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 look at just about any roads "improvement" initiative there is the obvious end result that it is a knee jerk reaction attempt to achieve.

And then there is the unintended consequence that it always actually achieves.

Which is always the exact opposite.

Take for example draconian punishments for drink (as opposed to drunk) driving: no change in drunk driving, fewer "drink" drivers, but as a result more people not driving to the pub, free to get drunk, and an overall increase in drink "related" deaths on the road.

And it's not just seen in roads improvements:

Firearms "controls" are another classic example of the "liberals" shooting themselves in the foot.

The problem is that the people who campaign for and control these initiatives aren't acting on sound research and knowledge, but out of blind faith in an quasi religious belief.

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

The traditional way was to have speed limits set at the 85th percentile to give a guide to strangers and the inexperienced.

And to use those speed limits as a tool to prosecute, with discretion, those driving markedly in excess of the safe speed for the road and the conditions at the time.

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

Please explain how the "85th percentile" of a part of a road could be determined. In particular, I need to know how the wishes of residents that the road passes through would be accounted for. My concern is that if the "85th percentile" is used to set the limit, local residents may have no influence on the limit that is choosen. As they are the important stakeholders, the "85th percentile" idea is a dead duck except for fast "cars only" roads, motorways etc.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Rubbish! Safety before sensibilities.

The 85th percentile method delivers best safety. I'll have some of that please.

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

If this were a true statement, and the law of unintended consequences holds forth in every domain, then net positive development is impossible.

Actually, given the global warming situation, where industrialisation has yielded some short term improvements but has literally cost us the earth, you might have a point!

_________________
I stole this .sig