Safe Speed Forums

The following emails have been exchanged:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: THAT AD
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:43:36 +0100
From: "Steven Saunders" <private>
To: <thatad@safespeed.org.uk>

Hello,

Perhaps you would like to hear of an incident that I had about 10 years ago, but one that has stuck with me all my driving time. I was driving
along when a young boy ran out in front of me. There was no warning, he was hidden by parked cars, no chance of avoiding him.

The outcome was that I was doing about 10-mph and stopped about 1m from where he froze, and I watched him run off completely oblivious to
how close he came to injury. The speed limit in the street was 30-mph, so why was I driving so slow ? Because there was a primary school right
there.

No amount of hazard perception training could have saved him, the only thing that did was my speed., It was around 4-30 pm when there were no
other children about, no warning that this could have happended. I would argue that no amount of training could have prepared for this unexpected
event. This happened at a school, but children being children it could equally have happened on any urban or even rural road.

If I had been driving at 20mph or 30mph the outcome would have been different. And if I had been doing 36mph, well.
The bottom line is that what the ad is saying is that you cannot know what might happen, perhaps in the ideal world the driver in the advert would
have seen the child from a distance, slowed down and stopped safely. My experience is that this does not happen in real life.

I am not for one minute saying that everyone should drive around at 10-mph of course, but then the advert does have a serious message that even
a few mph can make the difference between life and death. If the driver had been doing 20-mph then as above, the outcome would have been
different.

No doubt your opinion will not change on the right of the driver to exceed the speed limit as and when they choose, but thankfully there are many
like myself who from experience realise the consequences of driving at an unsafe speed. (You will note I did not say exceeding the speed limit,
the speed limit was 30-mph)

You may think made this up to prove a point, but I can promise you was a 100% genuine incident early in my driving life, one that like i said was
not forgotten.

Steven

This is my second email to you, I hope you find it useful. It would be nice to see a more balanced view on your web-site, it does seem very one
sided, do you censor messages that are published ?

===========================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Smith" <psmith@safespeed.org.uk>
To: "Steven Saunders" <private>
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: SAFE SPEED ?


> Hi Steven,
>
> I would love to afford your the courtesy of a comprehensive reply, but I
> REALLY don't have time before I leave for London tomorrow. I'm already
many
> hours behind schedule. Post the same message to the forums and some folk
will
> pop along and answer your questions pronto.
>
> On the question of cameras and attention, have a look at this:
> http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speedo.html
> Scares the hell out of me..
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Paul Smith
> Safe Speed
>
> web: http://www.safespeed.org.uk
> ---------------------------------
> promoting intelligent road safety
=======================================

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: SAFE SPEED ?
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 23:12:15 +0100
From: "Steven Saunders" <private>
To: "Paul Smith" <psmith@safespeed.org.uk>

Thanks for that, I am in no hurry for a reply, but I would like to think
that you would offer me the courtesy. Iam genuinely interested in your
views

Steven
=======================================


Unfortunately I forgot the emails on my return, but Mr Saunders clearly thinks I'm avoiding him. I just got this email:
=======================================
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: ANSWER TO MY E-MAIL
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 23:28:03 +0100
From: "Steven Saunders" <private>
To: <psmith@safespeed.org.uk>

Mr Smith

I am very disappointed, though not surprised that you have not bothered to reply to my previous emails to you. Disappointed because firstly I
think I raised genuine questions and that (despite having critisised others on your website for the same reason) you have chosen not to reply.

And not surprised because this sums up the road lobby, they like to critisise and make completely false statements in public but cannot handle
any professionals daring to questioning their flawed logic. I would like you to publish my original comments plus this message on your web site
for genuine open debate.

But of couse you won't.

Have you another ' urgent ' meeting in London tomorrow and so can't possibly answer this email, even though you would love to ?

I await your reply with interest.

Steven.
===========================================

Why so rude Mr Saunders?

Edited to add my reply:
===========================================
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: ANSWER TO MY E-MAIL
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 00:02:40 +0100
From: Paul Smith <psmith@safespeed.org.uk>
Organization: Safe Speed
To: Steven Saunders <private>

Hi,

It would have been nicer if you had sent a gentle reminder. I deal with around
200 emails a day. You should not be surprised to hear that I do not manage to
answer them all.

I have posted your emails to the Safe Speed forums...

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2927

... as requested. I shall reply there.

--
Best Regards,
Paul Smith

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

The reason we exist is because drivers reducing speed in areas of danger is of fundamental importance to road safety. As your example illustrates, the speed limit does not secure safety.

We are extremely concerned that present policy removes from drivers responsibility for selecting a safe speed according to the circumstances.

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

Steven, I am the father of two boys, one of whom has slight learning difficulties, one manifestation of which is he is oblivious to danger.
Several times he has placed himself in danger in the manner you describe, but in different circumstances - supermarket car parks, and as a pedestrian abroad when he failed to take into account the cars were on a different side of the road.
Your illustration serves only too well to describe the hazards which exist, and your driving at 10 mph because of the school is exemplary. Recently we had just such a discussion, regarding limiting speed in front of schools, and how other areas and countries managed the problem. Flashing amber lights at school times indicating a reduced limit was one example shown, and generally applauded. I dont rely on any measures in place now or in the future - I pester my children constantly to pay attention to what is going on around them.
You do not say whether you would advocate taking such a slow speed 24 hours a day, or if you would have travelled so slowly if the parked cars had not been there to hinder your view, but for myself, when I drive through our estate, I travel below 20 under any circumstabces where children might be about or vision hindered by any obstacle, but at night in the dark I drive nearer 25 - 28 mph, providing my view ahead is not impaired. I do not wish to see a 20 mph limit imposed, and enforcement left to a robotic enforcement device, I would rather all drivers had the opportunity to be trained to a better standard than is presently the case, and to continue to be allowed to judge when to drive slow, and when to drive faster, and if it is safe to do so, I see nothing wrong with exceeding an unfairly imposed limit.
In THAT AD, the driver makes a whole host of errors other than speed. He has failed to notice the child in good time, failed to adjust his speed, or his course accordingly, and has braked far too hard and late. In some occasions it might be safer to accelerate out of the way of a hazard, and in some cases not, but I have no wish to be forced to drive to a poorer standard than I do already, just so that some road users can abdicate THEIR responsibility for their safety, and make it ALL mine. If circumstances indicate it doesnt matter if I am a couple of miles per hour over the limit, then it shouldnt matter - but to a camera it does.

Can somebody help me out with a link to IG's COAST post?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Yup

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewt ... 0475#30475

Is this not EXACTLY what we are saying. You drive to the prevailing conditions and risk. Just because it is a 30 limit you are not obliged to drive at 30. If ever I pass a school or park where there are children present I ALWAYS slow down and increase my level of observation to the areas of risk, entrances, blind spots, parked cars etc. Thats what good drivers do. And thats what we promote here....good responsible driving.

If you put a 20 mph speed limit outside a school which applies 24/7 it will eventualy get ingnored because 90% of the time it is not appropriate. Put a 20mph limit outside a school which operates at school times and it will get more compliance. In any case I have been in situations, especialy where parents are dropping kids off, where 20mph is too fast!



There does seem to be a fundimental misunderstanding. Safe speed for the prevailing conditions is exactly what we are about, and this is the biggest failing of the Speed Camera system. I drive in up to Derby every day and there is a road there up to the A61 that is a 60 limit. There are many entrances and a supermarket car park (no cameras). I have NEVER felt it appropriate to drive at more than 50 in rush hour because of the hazards. Late at night though it is different, much less traffic at junctions.

I do not see that this shows a lack of balance...



This is just rubbish. Most people who try to ""professionally" discredit this site usualy give up after a few posts when their arguments fall apart. The "professionals" rely on their own flawed information and ridiculous narrow minded view point. Most have never bothered to read any threads in detail and just jump to conclusions. Speaking of false statements remember the "one third of fatal road accidents are caused by speeding" lie. If they had told the truth at the time and put the resource into effective road safety measures speed cameras may not have ever existed and the roads would be a much safer place.

What makes a "professional" anyway? A clerk working for a Speed Camera Prtnership, a Transport2000 activist or an experienced Traffic Police Officer?


Good for you. Then that makes you the same as the rest of us.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

What saved him is that you were at the right place at the right time. (only just)
Had you been a half a car's length away when he ran out then you wouldn't even have had time to brake and, at that speed, there's a good chance that he would have ended up underneath your car.
Going slower does not have the magical property of preventing accidents, it just makes them slightly less likely to happen.
And that only makes any real difference in situations like the one you described where the level of danger is high to extreme.

Cheers
Peter

In fact, I'd go further, Peter. From a discussion we had earlier, I agree that the slower you are going in any situation, the longer you are exposed to random events in the road. however, witrh the situation Steven describes - going past two parked cars, randomness is distorted, particularly by a school, and the longer you are in a position where you cannot see pedestrians emerging from the pavement between them and the longer a window of opportunity you present to pedestrians to do so, without being able to see you

This is important. The safest way to approach a couple of parked cars between which pedestrians may emerge is, from as far away as reasonably practicable observe and keep reobserving with snap takes the situation. If there is any pedestrian activity (legs under cars visible, dog opposite with tail up, uncontrolled kids etc) you may actually need to STOP *PRIOR* to reaching the cars, let alone go through at 10 mph - even if there is nobody at that time crossing. Once you've established that nothing is going to go between the cars, the safer speed is probably faster than 10 mph to avoid any window of opportunity to pedestrian emerging from eg alleyways or drives and running straight into your path without you having any opportunity to see them (being obscured by the rear parked car).

Hello Steven,

Just over a year ago I wrote an EMail to Paul Smith criticising his website and his anti-speed camera stance, in a similar vein to your own.
A couple of months ago I joined the SS campaign as a member (bully for me you say), but let me explain why.
You had a 'one-off' incident which, as Pete317 points out, thankfully had a favourable outcome because of the circumstances. And there will be many more of those played out today, tomorrow etc etc.
The real problem with today's Road Safety messages is that they are horrifically oversimplified viz, drive below the speed limit and all will be sweetness and light. But it doesn't work like that in real life, we need drivers to consider much more than just their speed.
Now I personally don't have the same unswerving faith in the readiness of drivers to slow down near obvious hazard areas as many of my fellow SS'ers. I can call to mind two or three local roads where this quite simply isn't the case, in fact just over a year ago a little lad was killed on one of them. And now a speed camera is to be installed, the panacea for all speeding ills it would seem. RUBBISH.
The camera will produce exactly the same sort of driving response as all the others across the land - drivers will slow down near its all-seeign eye then resume normal (sadly, often thoughtless) driving thereafter.
Thus, the messages have to be spelled out clearer and with more breadth. Think about the hazards around you, slow down when you really need to - this may often mean to way, way below the posted limit for that road. Be prepared, preact don't rely on having to react, etc etc.
So, please see the Safe Speed campaign for what it is, a cry for a return to proper policing of our roads and a holistic approach to educating drivers on appropriate driving for the plethora circumstances they will encounter.

I had a similar incident myself.

I entered a village and saw a mother and child loading up a car in a layby at the side of the road. I assessed the situation and reduced my speed to give me ( and the following cars ) more more time to react. There was a sudden movement from the mother, i couldnt see the child but expected them to appear from behind the car, so i braked firmly to a stop ( not full emergency stop as i had already adjusted my speed down ). I stopped 10m from the toddler, with a very flustered mum rushing out to grab her. She was very relieved and flustered and apologised to me.

I was going 30 in a 30 when i 1st saw them, and slowed to 20 straight away. I would have slowed down even if the limit was 40 or higher. The speed limit had no effect on this incident, but looking ahead and anticipating did.

Pauls website is called SAFESPEED, which is what you seem to support. Have i missed something here? I see no reason why you feel that Paul would censor your email as it seems to prove his point about speed limits.

Hello Steven

As some of the chaps have already pointed out - we have a problem by emphasising 30 mph at all times. It can be too fast in certain conditions - and we do attend accidents whereby people have pointed out that they were not speeding.

Indeed - but they were not applying something much more important ...COAST. Now COAST does not actually mention speed directly - but if applied porperly we find a COAST driver is compliant to the speed limit and, more importantly, adjusts to the speed to deal with a hazard properly.

Thus - on a road with parked cars either side and a school and perhaps a play area inthe area - COA means you are concentrating on the road ahead and applying obeservation skills. To me this is as Roger has already mentioned: you look under the cars to see a foot, a ball, or any tell tale signs that a child, person, cyclist is there. I even look to see if there are any reflections in car windows parked acrros the way too. Speedwise - a COAST driver would be ambling along at between 10-20mph max at times dependent on individual circumstance.

Now as for children and road sense .... I am in a different situation when some child behaves stupidly on the road: you see - I can at least have a quiet word with the child who places him or herself in danger.



But there is nothing to stop people from contacting the head teacher of the local school and drawing attention that students at the school may be due a reinforcement of Green Cross Code. I have done this and I think one of my relatives (the accountant one) has done this in the past. We all have some responsibility for preventing accidents and we need children to be as aware of dangers as the adult s who drive and cycle.

Now about the advert in question. It was a bit flawed - showed a wheel lock and it was over-egged to point of curdling the mix on the editing. The old ones showing a child what could happen in they played on the roads and an driver what could happen if they failed to observe child playing on the roadway worked better - especially since I still remember the one with the rattling tin can the boy was kicking. Simple stuff works and daft stuff doesn't! The replacement one showing a child return to life and a voice over saying if she'd been hit at 30 mph, she'd still be alive.... again it is giving a wrong message: people will believe 30 mph is OK even if it is not the case and a slower speed is actually safer - dependent on condition. Emphasis of these kind of adverts should be on safe driving practice and stressing the importance observing and anticipating the actions of these youngsters and other hazards - and adjusting speed to match the actual circumstance which may mean reducing to well below 30 mph


But speed cams ... they slow for the camera and accelerate again afterwards. They then deploy other speed traps - van and officers to trap speeders after the cameras. Waste of resources really. Much better to have the cars out and about. Our presence encourages good driving standards and whilst they are aware of the location of the van - they are not aware of where we happen to be patrolling at any one time. Works a treat! And the lads get to practice their discretion skills too!

_________________
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.

If you took the time to see the views of the majority of the Safe Speed visitors you will find them not only informed but extremely safety conscious with the majority having taken further driver training i.e. I.A.M./Rospa etc.
We are not all a bunch of drink driving, dope smoking speed freaks intent on human carnage but a collective group who understand the real issues on our roads and resent safety being ignored with the belief that the Speed cameras will solve all are road going ills.
I have read your points now can I suggest you extend ours the same courtesy?

Well said Paul W and others.

You need to take in the message before jumping to the wrong conclusions.

Hi Steven,

I think, as others have said, that you were exhibiting driving which follows the 'safe speed' philosophy, and also 'COAST' as defined above.

These driving philosophies demand much more emphasis on concentration, anticipation and planning than the one dimensional 'numerical speed' message which is being heavily promoted by the authorities.

Decide honestly for yourself what it was which made you drive at 10 mph on this particular occasion.

1. Was it because you were aware that the speed limit was 30 mph and you should not exceed it?
   
   or
   
2. Was it that you appreciated the density of risk and potential seriousness of the hazards at the scene, and reduced your speed accordingly, using concentration and anticipation to plan your way through this hazard area.

If your answer was '2', then you are already more aligned to the 'Safe speed' philosophy than you realise.

Please take a full look at the site, and you'll realise that it is ABSOLUTELY NOT advocating driving at any speed other than a responsible, safe speed.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

Hi Stephen,

Not many places you could get a debate with at least three trafpols and get the same sort of answer!!

As others have said, you were doing the right thing - adjusting your speed to the situation and risk. Personally I support 15 or 20mph zones around schools, indicated by lights, and operated ONLY when children are likely to be crossing.

But by the same rule, who can argue with driving at 80 on a clear dual carriageway when the conditions are right, if the law was adjusted to allow this ?

But this illustrates perfectly the whole flaw in the "driver's fault" type argument used today.

For example -

My 6 year old daughter knows her Green Cross Code, waits for the green man at crossings, only gets out of the car on the kerb side, etc.... and oddly enough the primary school often gets "remember" visits from their local trafpol!!! It's not rocket science, and its not high tech...but it saves lives.

Incidentally, going back to a few posts about the speed police drive at when going to incidents - two days ago my other half was rear ended on the motorway (not seriously, thankfully). I'll openly admit that I have never driven as fast as when that index number came over the radio.... just about every copper's nightmare....

I know what you mean, Cotswold. It's scary. I recently got a call when almost at my office that my wife had been admitted to hospital as an emergencywith a suspected cardiac condition (heart attack to you and me). I can't remember when I ever covered 35 miles up the A1 in such a short time and, no, I really didn't care about the possibility of scamvans. However, I did still drive safely, before anyone starts at me, and well within my ability. No accident, no NIP, and my wife is now fine.

Coops and Cots, glad to hear both your better halves are okay.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Seconded Gatsobait.

As all know - I more than broke a speed limit to get Wildy (high risk) to hospital when she went into labour last October. Fortunately - no vans and I used the green lights as well.

When the accident happened 15 years or so ago - the BiB drove me at a very high speed to her side - and it still was not fast enough for me. We were lucky - as you all know she is alive, well and driving all to distraction on the PH board!

As for our kids - we teach them the Highway Code, Green Cross Code from a very early age and we make sure they fully understand road safety before allowing them to go on errands or visit their pals without ur specific supervision.

As for our driving skills - COAST plays a big part in all three drivers in this particular household - me, my wife and our eldest son. Choosing a safe speed is not about hooning it up on a motorway or on a track - it's about reading the road and conditions and working with the other road users as well. Nobody on this site is suggesting abolition of any speed limit - but suggesting quite stronly that a single focus on speed and enforcing a speed limit with an absolute rigidity is compromising rather than enhancing road safety.

_________________
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.

Despite my change in emphasis over the past few months, I still follow the self imposed rule that I do not intentionally speed or exceed limits while off duty. My one exception to that was when my wife was rushed to Royal Lancaster Infirmary from Westmorland General Hospital when in labour due to dificulties experienced by both mother and child. My trip from Kendal to Lancaster took no account of speed limits (although no added risk).

Like the others I'm glad there were no serious consequences in Cooperman's and Cotswold's cases.

I've been tutoring for the past couple of months, and was prompted by one of my tutees to revisit some memories as he suggested the other day that I must have seen some sights at accidents.

It's funny how over the years you think you would get get a bit immune to the carnage, but in reality you don't. The sight and sound of someone screaming their last while their car is in flames when there is no possible way of getting even close to them, is a memory which brands itself like a tattoo which you never wanted.

The memory of tending to a lad who was victim of his mates tiredness and his own failure to wear a seatbelt, so that when the car overturned on the motorway and the windscreen shattered, this poor lads face was grated by the road surface to beyond recognition before the vehicle eventually came to a halt. His eventual death was a blessing to him.

Or the chap who had been knocked off his bike and was lying in the road reportedly with a broken leg. By the time we had arrived another driver had driven over his head and failed to stop.

Or the three kids killed 2 years ago near Ulverston. Mobile phones used by the two survivors meant that the families were all at the scene before we got there.
Undoubtedly the survivors and bereaved are harder to deal with than the deceased.

The one I just can't get out my head was when a couple of young women were on M6 taking their two young kids to Oasis, when they were confronted by a stationary Volvo facing the wrong way in the centre lane. They swerved off the road colliding with a tree. The parents seatbelts protected them from serious injury, but the 4 year old lad had unbelted himself. He was ejected through the front windscreen which broke his neck and killed him instantly.
I arrived at the scene with a female probationer constable. The mother who was hysterically screaming at her child suddenly threw him to my probationer shouting at her to get him to breathe because she couldn't.
My probationer was good trafpol material until that moment. She wouldn't touch the job now.

I suppose the majority of fatals don't have the same lasting impact, but as Cooperman and Cotswold have said, when you hear that it's your own in trouble, time cannot wait until you satisfy yourself that all is OK.

These are a few examples of why Cotswold IG and I are passionate about fatality reduction. The passion is also evident in many SS posters. It serves us well to remember that the statistics we use and work with are not just numbers to the people involved. I wish our policy makers would think the same way a little more often.


Edited to add: Sorry if this post is a bit morbid - perhaps I shouldn't have had that last glass of malt.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

Graphic, yes, but also a reminder of the sort of scenes we need to reduce and why. I feel sorry for the poor coppers who have to deal with it all as well as the victims and families. Not for any money could I do your job, lads, I doubt I'd have the stomach for it.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

There's a knot in mine just from reading that last post by Ian.

And here's me sat here all upset and grieving over a bloody dog! (long story)

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