Safe Speed Forums

http://www.dothetest.co.uk/

go on.







i would have put this in the cycling area but thought it deserved a wider audience.

The bear was a bit distracting I only saw 12 of the passes.

_________________
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

haha brilliant it's like openly admitting a failed policy

If you're told to concentrate on one thing more than anything else (ie, your speed) you will not spot other things (cyclists, pedestrians etc)

You're so right. But they'll never admit it. Road safety policy has to be exclusively about blaming everything on, restricting, and punishing the motorist.

Still, that video's about the first thing TfL have ever done which has made me smile. Now all we have to do is make our own take-off of it in such a way as to prove mmltonge's point. (Come to think of it, a whole set of Safe Speed videos wouldn't be a bad idea....)

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

It's even easier to miss something you're not looking for, if you are looking for something else to count numerically.

Here's the dangerous version of this experiment:

While driving in a metropolitan area, how many sandy blondes can you spot through the windshield only?

Seriously, I get the ad's point, but does anyone count anything while driving? The mental task of counting occurences that need to be visually tracked in realtime is by definition a dangerous distraction to driving.

That's easy. Make a video of a driver looking at the speedometer while the vehicle strikes someone, or another vehicle.
"SM,IDSY. I was looking at my speedometer."
"What should you really be looking at?"

OKay, maybe that isn't a take-off of 'dothetest', but mmltonge, what did you think?
They should include, but definitely should not be limited to, take-offs. The problem is not the most important part of the solution.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

I don't "look" at my speedo though, I glance at it.

It's a flick of the eye.

I use the same flick of the eye to check my rear view mirrors, save when I'm doing a manouvre in which case I actually look in them, and I also look over my shoulder before I actually make it, after checking in front of me to make sure I've got time to do this naturally (unless I'm stopped).

How often?

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

And it's not just about how often you "glance" at it, it's how much you're thinking about it. And the more cameras that go in (daily) then the more often you're thinking about your speed and what speed you need to not be above. The more you're thinking about and glancing at your speedo the less time you are spending thinking about other hazards.


As you say Weepej, a glance at your speedo is the same as a glance in your mirrors. So whilst im glancing at my speedo every time I come near a camera or to a spot known for radars (in a 10 mile journey near here that's way over 10 times) I'm not glancing at important accident prevention tools such as my mirror. Whilst I "glance" at my speedo, if I glance to quick I don't know if it's definitely below the limit so I'll glance again to doouble check (it's not good being in the region of 30, I MUST be below exactly 33 mph so it needs a definite check) - in that time of 'glancing' i've missed the kid running out in front of me - but it's all good as it turns out I was doing 30 dead on so the kid has an 80% chance of living, right?

i knew you lot would jump on this with the speed enforcement angle and i'd broadly agree.

but before we embark on another round of pej bashing....

we keep banging on about driver education as a such i think it's pretty good use of cash (better than cameras anyway).

But I don't think the film actually proves anything and I would say that it's not applicable to a real world driving/riding situation.

In the film, the viewer is instructed directly to focus on, and process a single, specific piece of information. No mention is made of being aware of other things going on, or looking out for anything unusual outside of this.

When driving in a busy situation, there are no instructions at all - we are reliant on our ability to assess the situation and decide for ourselves what to look out for. Situational awareness is the key here and has nothing to do with the ability to focus on, and process a single specific piece of information. If I understand the point of the film correctly, it suggests that we should sacrefice out focus on one thing (the number of passes) in order to look out for something else (the man in the bear costume). In reality, when driving, we should give ourselves enough time to process ALL the information presented without trading one thing off against another.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

The obvious counter argument is that as you are aware of the need to check your speedo you give yourself space to do so, which possibly means driving slower.

I know this will be a bit contentious, however having to build in time to check your speed is something a competent driver should be able to do. That doing so increases the driver workload possibly above that of actually driving at a self judged safe speed is also the case. The outcome is that you actually have to drive slower to maintain safety.

So my pov is that driving to the camera limit is not really more dangerous for a competent driver it is simply not any safer.

Except

Some or many drivers will not factor this in and drive to their speedo without building in the safety margins needed to do so.

If the potential hazards prevent you from doing a speed check and also mean you notice a camera late the natural instinct is to brake first and check your speed later. Dancing bear effect?

_________________
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

Took the words out of my mouth Sixy.

I can count the number of times I have tried to drive through a pack of basketball players on the claws of one paw.

_________________
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

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

sheesh it's not meant to be literal

its the same as the motorbike awareness ad at the t-junction (but a little more engaging)

if you're focussed on getting out in a gap in the traffic you may miss (or hit!) cyclists (or motorcyclists).
if you're aware and looking out for then you shouldn't.

it's pretty clear (to me) that maybe 50% of drivers on the road don't factor cyclists into their driving, anything that encourages them to do so is good in my book.

Said before - if you are concentrating on concentrating - then you ain't concentrating on the task in hand in reality

Observation should be systematically sweeping all the elements and conditions in any situation into your hard deep glances - (which does include NOSE and EARS as well as eyes - and then risk assessing or prioritising the potential hazards and how to deal with them

Does this film work? Nope. The hazard ware test as it stands on the actual driving test funnily enough is a much better and tougher observation test You have to admit it

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

As usual they miss the point in this and also in the hopeless and error prone Motorcycle A pillar adverts.

Whilst they wish to tar all public with with the simpleton brush they too show themselves up to being useless at demonstration of driving issues.
I could link their obsessiveness with numbers to beautifully distract the 'observer' to miss everything else then blame the observer for being stupid.
Perhaps they got the children to design this 'infoad' as well, that would make sense as it's useless !

By insulting the audience any possible message or good to come of this is gone. Even aimed at a 'D' audience this film still does not work.
Conclusion : Transport for London is Not Fit For Purpose.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Well even this is useless too imho as although you have to observe the reality is that to gain points has nothing to do with your observational skills but WHEN to click at the right moment in the film - too soon in the Htest and you get nowhere not a single point, too late and you also fail, and around the first 25-40 (1 to 2) seconds of film / Htest section and you may get a varying amount of points, bu they have nothing to do with how well you 'saw' the hazard.
it is like the game of gage when to click - not how well can you see a hazard or potential hazard, you HAVE to let the hazard develop until at 'just' the right moment to 'win', not see hazard - click, constant check on known hazard ... and then you get into a whole load of nonsense when you can click too much for too many hazards, that it has decided are not hazards at all !

For me it became a 'forget drivng and all real life skills and obs skills,' or you'd drive yourself mad, but treat it like a game, and learn the response mechanisms then you could win (which I did). Again imo it is badly thought out, and relates not to the real world experiences of hazards .... you had to get into the heads of the programmers and 'how' they marked, not what you could observe .... very sad.
In it's favour it is a step in the right direction .... but on just, about just ....

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

it seems nobody is able to do right by you lot

maybe someone should run for mayor.

Hold on, this is a Govt. (well TfL) produced film that doesn't mention anything about speeding, surely that is something to applauded in itself?

Unless the message that SS sends out about the Govt only being interested in speeding is wrong...

Ed..

I have bought every hazard aware DVD to teach our kids.

They do not perhaps go far enough. Personally .. I think our encouragement to use their own photographic skills and view very seriously does seem to teach them a lot more realistically Lukas (the child born after my wifes's incident.. unexpected as we both .. er .. thought. errrr .. her plumbing was "that intake of breath you hear when it's gonna cost!" .. I think he will find his niche in forensic policing.

The video fails though as it asks us to focus on one thing .. like Pavlov's dog. You ask a person to look for one thing ,, they will. Currently it appears to be a speed cam and the fails of this policy reflect in the real stats as recorded by NHS and Police

Ed.. I KNOW I am right as folk do look for cams before any other hazard these days,.

Train to look for one single hazard.. you reap what get sown and sadly the stats BACK ME here

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.