Safe Speed Forums

No, we're not that stupid, and you know it - else you wouldn't be wasting your time coming on here trying to persuade us otherwise!
FOR THE RECORD I DO COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND that the slower you hit something, the less damage you will do. That has been understood for many years, and it's over-simplistic reasoning lead to the introduction of the Red Flag Act. Unfortunately, there's more to it than that - otherwise road deaths wouldn't have FALLEN in the years after it was repealed. Why? Well, perhaps because no matter how slow you're going when you hit someone, you'll do even LESS damage if you do not hit them in the first placel! Now to all but the most perverse (or stupid), this should indicate that a MULTI-lateral approach is what's needed.

That's actually pretty amusing coming from someone who has, on several occasions, come on here and demonstrated a cringingly embarrassing (for one who professes to know something about casualty reduction!) lack of understanding of the automotive advances in casualty reduction! (and if I was being unkind, I might even say the ONLY real advances in casualty reduction)! In fact, only the other week Volvo made a (somewhat headline-grabbing) claim:

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoe ... ledge.html

So who knows? If you manage to string the public along for another 10 years or so, you might even be able to claim it as a great achievement for speed limit enforcement and /or reduction - the only tools in your box!

Let's face it, when it comes to blinkered, unilateral, and largely ineffective (but pretty lucrative ) measures towards casualty reduction, the scamera partnerships are king!

So I say again, advances in vehicle technology have delivered falling KSIs consistently - before the camera era, during the camera era, and, if the powers that be can see beyond the revenue stream, long after the cameras are gone!

Not much I can add beyond Mole’s fair comments...


Only in your mind.
What you have completely failed to see are the confounding factors we have demonstrated within Foreman’s argument, as well as possible negligence of other parties involved, the correction of which would lead to a much more effective (and fairer) road safety policy. But no, for some strange reason you go focus on what we weren’t discussing!


You have shown little understanding of speed camera effectiveness beyond that of the lay-person (long-term, trends, 'bias on selection', etc - not things you have ever appreciated). The difference between your claim and mine is that I can prove mine, as well as demonstrating a conflict of interest on your part (for which the so-called 'non-avoidance' continues )

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

So if I could summarise the story:
The introduction of a 20mph speed limit would not have prevented or mitigated the outcome of this accident. A reduced limit may actually increase the severity of the outcome (compalcency issues).

So the reason we want lower limits is........

I'd rather avoid the accident in the first place, which would change the outcome, but then I am not a mindless autonotom of the parterships. Interestingly that brings me neatly on to my next point, anyone else notice that GS has ducked away from the other threads where he was asked tricky questions?

I don't think that fact has escaped anyone's attention, though when challenged on it he claims he hasn't.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

er, except that there's no correlation between the pre-braking travelling speed and the impact speed in a collision in which any braking has taken place.


(my bold)

There's zero probability of encountering exactly the same conditions if travelling at a different speed - as you would be well aware of if you spent a few minutes thinking about it.

Besides which, a more aware driver paying better attention might well have slowed right down before the child ran into the road - let alone be doing a much higher speed.


(my bold)

You're not going to prove your point by using huge exaggerations. We're talking about 20mph vs. 30mph here.



It would seem that you're the one with little understanding.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

God bless you mate, you've just gone with a 'common sense' approach and comment about safety that has bugger all to do with safety.

Primary concern with safety is to REMOVE the hazard,

Then CONTROL the hazard,

And then, only then after you have been unable to remove or control the hazard do you then MITIGATE the effects of the hazard if realised.

The half arsed policy we have now starts with mitigation as the primary concern - which when it fails leaves nowhere else to go.


One control measure is proper training - in fact MHSWR has a little acronym 'NIITS' - Necessary, Information, Instruction, Training and Supervision.

Lets apply that to driving and this case specifically shall we?

Roadcraft - a manual for drivers who have been trained to a much higher standard than many drivers on the road actually states within it's pages that a driver should be driving at a speed that enables them to stop in a controlled manner in the distance that they can see to be clear.

Now the writer of an article states that which given the later comment about this does seem to indicate a lack of situational awareness and observation.

Had the driver been observing in a cycle rather than - just straight ahead as many drivers appear to he may well have caught the child running fom the street a time before the child reached the pavement and road in front of his car - I find it hard to believe that whilst kids move quickly it was moving so fast he couldn't pick it up before hitting it - Think about the angles - the side road couldn't have been behind him as the kid would have to be doing at least 21mph to catch him up and run in front to him. So that leaves roughly side on - as he approach the side road, did he not think to observe what was there / was there a hazard - If I had seen a car that close to a side road junction I'd treat as a potential hazard - as he should have! If the road was side road was ahead of him it indicates a spectacular lack of observation.

So rather than going with your initial response of mitigation - how about control by better training and, therefore, standards of driving?


That's another topic mate and another hobby horse of mine.....

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

I think he's hoping that I'll forget, and not reveal his true identity!

Come on GS, last chance, admit to the forum your true mundane day job!

Please don't. He may just disappear completely, thus depriving us of a good source of entertainment

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Ah Roadcraft! Is that the same manual that says "you should not drive in excess of the speed limit" and "Speed is a significant factor in the cause of road traffic collisions" or is my copy I got from the police a different version?
You seem to have omitted those particular sections, any reason for that?

That used to mean something when the limits weren't unreasonable/abused so badly as they are today.


So are all of the following (ordered by significance, top being most significant):

- Failed to look properly
- Failed to judge other person's path or speed
- Careless, reckless or in a hurry
- Loss of control
- Poor turn or manoeuvre
- Slippery road (due to weather)
- Pedestrian failed to look properly
- Travelling too fast for conditions
- Sudden braking
- Following too close

[table 4c: RCGB2008)

Hey, wait a minute - 'exceeding the speed limit' doesn't seem to be in that list; isn't that the only behaviour that your cameras can possibly affect?


Yeah, it wasn't relevant to this thread We're talking about dropping limits based on a flawed emotional argument, not exceeding them - please do keep up at the back!
You seem to have (again) ignored the relevant arguments being discussed (confounding factors, negligence, solutions), any reason for that?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Yes I have a roadcraft manual also, I don't use it for my job. Why won't you come clean? You and I both know you are not involved in enforcement, buzzacot is more likely to be you trade manual is it not?

I'm not really keeping score here but it appears to be about SS 11 Greenshed 0. Anymore lambs left?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Something we used to do with worn out stuff on trips to the islands - we'd chuck it overboard in a decent depth of water and see if it passes the "FLOAT " test .We never ,ever took anything back home ( Close ?????/ )

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Greenshed, Steve has beaten me to the punch with most of what I was going to say. Steve

I would also add that as a few Police Class 1 instructors I've worked with over the years have said that the more recenet versions do have some incredibly PC Bullsh** comments in them, funnily enough refering to the parts you saw fit to quote:

Apart from the spin there is bugger all actual evidence out there.

As the aforementioned instructors commented, that would make responding to a call on blues and twos a bit bloody late.

Smoke and mirrors mate, you wanted to mention and pour scorn on layman's view of safety on this forum. As someone who has 12 years behind him, professional safety qualifications that cover a sheet of A4, professional memberships that require qualifications, cpd and experience to gain, oh and toss in the various high risk projects I've been involved in and the fact that I am a qualified and experienced accident investigator. I read the website and the forums and see a fair chunk of sense from many of the 'layman' here, more so than the used car salesmen in mufti giving the official position.

Oh and yes I have done road safety work - thoroughly hacked off two SCP's by ripping them a new one over thier safe working practices and a certain body responsible for roads in London.

Oh as a final - let me add the 4 years I spent doing SAR with the RAF, part of my duties were air ambulance attending predominantly RTA's as they were called then, so have the experience of being up to my elbows in blood - another thing that hacks me off is the usually pretty / smart pr person from the scp's who talk about if you've seen the horror.... Yes I have and it makes my blood boil when I see the 'experts' ignoring safety methodology that has been proven time and time again in favour of a mock methodology that raise cash and allows the deaths to continue.

Rant Over !

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

As others have said the accidents needs to be prevented in the first place. To some people it seems that it is OK to hit them as long as you are doing a slow speed
so you won't injury them. But what a lot of people forget is not the physical injuries, but the emotional injuries that can happen to the victim and to the parents
as well.

I couldn't agree more mate!

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

X2


Better to create a society which is more likely to hit a child at 20mph than avoid ever hitting them at 30+ mph in the first place by educating people in road sense

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Funny that, so did the earlier editions of Roadcraft. The copy I bought about 25 years ago hardly mentions speed limits.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Something I missed earlier...

I wonder if the child's aunt would have been more careful to keep the child under control had there been a train line or a cliff-edge nearby.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Pete, probably, one side effect that I see with the speed kills campaign is that (one 'safety' advert in particular comes in for a lot of stick from me) seems to absolve pedestrians from responsibility for thier own safety and given an expectation that cars just stop in no distance with almost star trek like physics.

I'm not advocating running down pedestrians but a little responsibility or parental responsibility wouldn't go amiss at times, for example my pet pedestrian peeves:

Mum, can't get across road due to traffic so stuffs babe in pram into the road If it isn't safe for her to stand in the road why is she stuffing supposedly her most precious out there ?????

Idiots who leap in front of you with thier hand outstretched as though they were an old fashion copper directing traffic, IIRC they have no legal authority to stop traffic and they are normally just in front of the car when they leap out, or is some sort of 'force' they are channeling to hold the car off from squishing them?

But that's an aside, I'll still drive eyes open expecting pedestrians near to me to leap out in a lemming like fashion...

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk