Safe Speed Forums

As I understand it, SafeSpeed advocates permitting drivers to drive at any speed provided it is safe.

However, as has been discussed elsewhere, there isn't really such a thing as "safe" or "dangerous", rather there are shades of risk. When we say "safe" we really mean "within an acceptable level of risk".

Ultimately, what the acceptable level is is a choice. There isn't a right or wrong answer - it is subjective.

So who should choose what the acceptable level of risk is?

What are the components of the risk level, and how do they interact?
And how important is the single factor of speed in the risk level equation?
Many people appear to think that speed is the critical factor. But are they right?

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

I don't think that's a fair representation of the Safe Speed policy.

My understanding of it is that, since a speed limit is by definition a broad brush instrument that can never accurately delineate safe and unsafe behaviour, it should not be enforced as if it were.

It gives a means to prosecute excessive speed, it does not define excessive speed.

_________________
"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

My understanding of Safespeed Policy was that - a safe speed depending on the roads/conditions/hazards - with due regard to the speed limits .I do not recall Safespeed ever endorsing breach of the limits( or that is my percieved view)


My understanding , too Pete -- also gives the police a means to prosecute
drivers who ,in the absense of limits go mad , could be charged with DD but the police would have difficuty proving it ,but it could clearly be classed as unsafe under the conditions - but with human discretion it could be managed.
Safespeed , to my mind campaigns for a return to those standards - where the decent driver, "taking a bit of a liberty" was brought down to earth by a competant police driver, whilst the dangerous speeder got the book etc thrown at him - all judged by a human who was qualified to do so, and and end to automated penalties.

_________________
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

As you said 'safe' means that the risk is at an acceptable level. A safe driving speed to a competent driver should be 'safe' and acceptable to other drivers of similar skill, with similar knowledge of driving?

Perhaps inexperienced drivers may find this speed too fast, but once they become more experienced this speed should seem more appropriate to them, as long as the 'competent' driver was using an appropriate speed, and they may find that they were just lacking in skill/knowledge when they were younger or less experienced.

Elderly drivers may also find this speed 'unsafe', as their level of acceptable risk may be lower because of many factors, such as lacking in confidence and likening modern cars to cars of past.

If drivers were better trained from the start and were all actually taught to a standard level, by which they would be able to select an appropriate speed for conditions THEMSELVES, as long as they actually choose the appropriate speed, and anyone policing this agrees, then the speed would be 'safe', or with an acceptable level of risk.

Obviously the idiot flying past the local school, at 3pm, at 35/40mph, is using an inappropriate speed for the conditions. On the other hand the 'safe' driver who decides that at 2am whilst driving on an empty motorway he/she could safely go faster (90, 100mph) would be using an appropriate speed for the conditions, and would be driving with an acceptable level of risk.

Mike

As I understand Safespeed, from the pages I have read, and from taking part in forums over a long period - both here and on the now defunct CSCP site, Safespeed advocates choosing a speed that is safe, and that speed is not a definition of safe - many other influences come to bear.
As to who should determine an acceptable level of risk, then you should expand that a little.
If it is personal risk, then like mountain climbing, hang gliding, parachuting, etc. then the participant has to determine what level of risk he/she/them should accept. (You see, I just accepted a risk that "them" might or might not cause offence to gays, or PC activists!)

If the activity includes others, then everyone involved shoulders some of the risk, to varying degrees.
"Should I get in this car with a driver I think is careless?"
"Should I pass this horse and rider or wait until the road is wider"
and of course other road users sharing the same stretch of road should be making mutually beneficial decisions, based on training, experience, and rules. "Why SHOULD I drive on the right?".
When it comes to selecting an appropriate speed, there is only one rule - the posted limit - which should not be seen as a target we are told.
That is like saying you should not flinch if something appears to be flying at you from the film screen in the cinema - you cannot help others from reacting to their embedded perceptions.
Similarly, despite what the SCP's tell us, drivers do watch the speedo and not the road, and others who are already below the limit, brake for the cameras.
Those who either dont care for the posted limit, or are driving without due care, and fail to keep to the limit, OR see the camera, continue to get caught.
Lots of them get away with speeding because they know where the camera is, and merely slow for 1 hundred yards or so.

If you are driving towards a chasm - you watch out for the chasm. If there were a minefield in front of it, you'd watcxh out for mines, until the chasm was right in front of you.
Cameras are like a minefield. Policemen are like sentrys guarding the chasm - they dont blow up under your feet, yet warn you when you approach the danger of the chasm.
Replace the cloak of invisibility, and a large proportion of drivers will simply look out for mines!

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

Nope. That's a misstatement of the position. If can can stop comfortably on your own side of the road within the distance that you know is clear (and you know with reasonable certainty that it will remain clear then the risk from speed is zero. The risk only increases if the 'knowledge' is false, or the 'reasonable certainty' is unjustified.

This is not a subjective judgement. It's a matter of objective fact that is capable of being perceived and determined by experienced drivers. Inexperience brings its own risks that include poor hazard perception.

Safe Speed agrees with speed limits and with discretionary speed limit enforcement.

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

Firstly, I accept I have misunderstood "SafeSpeeds" stated position.



Thats a fair point. But that cuts all ways, of course.




They would also have to actually drive to that training. I think its fair to say that an awful lot of people don't drive in accordance with their existing training.

And as you acknowledge, different drivers will have different opinions on what the acceptable level of risk is. What where the risk created by someone's action is acceptable to some but not to others who may have to face that risk?



Does anyone disagree with that anywhere?



Agreed - but that doesn't really help determine what the acceptable level of risk is. After all, the risk isn't just faced by the driver.



But how and why should those limits be set?

(I appreciate this is all rather back-to-basics, and may involve answering points that have already been answered - but I think it would be a useful exercise)

ndp - acceptable level of risk is nil .
After that you get into the stages of near miss. I will not bore you with my weekly work routine, suffice it to say that i set up and supervise safe systems of work for colleagues - they trust my judgement - as i trust theirs - as short cuts get taken , risk increases - near misses occur and people get hurt - i quoted earlier a saying from an old wise uncle " if in doubt - DON'T" .

Applies in life as in driving -I DEAL with risk on the road and in another field - one where i and colleagues can't get sickness insurance - our job is too risky - yet due to our safety systems we got an award recently for 500 days free from a reportable accident - ask SE how good that is in the construction industry.

Driving is a risk assessable task - every step needs looking at to ensure that at all times risk is minimal.Then true road safety kick in.

Forgive me - in matters of safety - SE and me vie for first place

_________________
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

Umm, you can never totally eliminate risk, and you're fooling yourself if you believe you can. Any form of movement, even getting out of bed in the morning, involves some risk.

Obviously you should seek to minimise it as far as is reasonable and practical, but it will always be there to some degree.

_________________
"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

Is this a question in philosophy? I don't think we need to go there...



No system is ever going to be perfect - it'd be entirely wrong to try and go there too. The objective is improvement - and if we can improve that knowledge then we're on the right track.



The vast majority of road users in the vast majority of crashes had an opportunity to avoid. (But I'm not sure I understood the question - there's something funny about the wording...)



Is this philosophy again? I really am claiming that there's an objective standard. You might call shortfalls in the achievement of that standard subjective, but if we went there I'd claim we were being confused by terminology.



Set appropriate speed limits; make hazards as easy to perceive as possible; help them to gain experience as quickly and as effectively as possible; support them when they try and learn from their mistakes; ensure that they understand their responsibilities; ensure that they can recognise and learn from near misses - those sorts of things.



Setting limits at around the 85th percentile speed is an excellent starting point. Due consideration should be given to changing conditions at different times of day if possible.

Limits are set for three reasons (and I think this list is exhaustive):

1) To guide inexperienced drivers away from exceeding safe and appropriate speeds by wild margins.

2) To give the Police an easy to use tool against those who may use speed carelessly or recklessly or unwisely.

3) To provide advanced warning to drivers of expected hazard density and proximity.

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

But the idea should be to eliminate ,as far as possible , all risks .
In setting up safe systems of work- risk elimination is part of the objective - my ideal at work is to remove personell a set time before any danger occurs - which is an absolute .Other safe systems might involve other risks - due to distance from hazards. In these cases a standard must be set, and observed.

_________________
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

er, that wasn't a rhetorical question. I'm interested in discussing this.



That's the big question - what do we do about them? Simply limiting their speed is little more than a crude attempt at damage limitation, which may or may not work. The big problem with them is lack of experience, hazard perception and attention. A car travelling at just 30mph covers 44 feet in one second, so a single seconds inattention, or less, can prove very costly in terms of life and limb.
Which is why I think it's important that we discuss this in detail - see my first point above.

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

ndp - I strongly receommend you read "Road Craft" - the chapter on "Observation" in particular. This is really the words behind COAST if you like... but basically we "risk assess" - we oberve - anticipate and order hazards in order of immediate importance.

Now obviously the more we drive - the better our developing expertise - which peaks and remains static to some extent - and then sadly recedes a little gradually as part of the normal ageing process once we hit (gulp - th- that er age...

But the hazard varies - the hazard itself -

how close it is to you ]

Road layout - the blind bend - the humpback ... and today - I had a numpty get to the top of the hill and the numpty on t'tother side almost have a "head on " - before one decided to reverse at speed .. . and he did not reverse into my car (had anticipated and kept me distance ) - but let's just say he will not forget our little "talk" in an 'urry

whether the hazard is stationary or moving...


how fast you are approaching it

The greater the element of potential danger in you assessment - the greater the priority you give it.

Now what do we do once we have established there is a "great danger"?

Well once you have rated the hazards in order of "priority" - and usually this means slowing for the kid on the pavemnet in case he rushes out...and giving the cyclist space and time - and definitely not overtaking him and turning left immediately in front of him...etc.. etc ... you decide on the next course of action (S and T opf COAST)

Basically each plan takes account of how your move will affect the other road user and his safety

you look at

1. What can be seen

2, what cannot be seen - what's over the hump back bridge =- around the sharp bend ?

3. What might reasonably be expected to happen

4. Which hazards represent the greatest threat to immediate safety issues


5. A contingency plan - what to do if things do not pan out as origianlly thought.

Basically COAST practice helps you make these decisions in a methodical manner and without hesitation - and you do become more fluent as you practise. At first - it is always difficult to do things with a conscious effort - but get into the habit and it becomes second nature

The collective on here has already posted a lot of stuff on tightening observation - I think you should take a look in the other areas of this forum - you may find you learn something more

_________________
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.

ndp, I wonder how you would have coped prior to 1965

No speed limits out of town!

And some cars could top 120mph. And some cars still had rod or cable brakes. (No servo assistance in those days).
By your mantra, none of the population who drove should still be alive. As has been mentioned previously, the time to preach is when you have a few hundred thousand miles under your belt, not whilst you're still wet behind the ears!

Would that that were true.

4) To kowtow to those who don't understand but have clout

5) To raise revenue

6) Perceived oil preservation and emission reduction.

7) To provide a laminar flow on approaches to bottlenecks to prevent what otherwise would be stop/start. [Actually this one is good]

8) To minimise perceived risk of bridge/support damage if any bend is involved (ie to minimise tangential and lateral forces to infrastructure)

I think 4, 6 & 8 are based on fallacious reasoning.

OSCAR - you forgot cross ply tyres , no seat belts, no electronic gadgetry, poor lights, roads with poor/negative camber, drunk drivers, certainly no speed cameras ( the ultimate safety device) , and could i change the miles figure to at least 500 thousand.I agree completely, as you're just a tad older than me, but come from a similar road background.


Edit - oops - missed heater to clear screen and rear window, plus outside temperature guage - i used to stick me hand out.

_________________
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

Yes, you're right. I chose the wrong words. I should have said:

Normally there are only three good reasons for setting speed limits (and I think this list is exhaustive):

'Flow smoothing' reasons are excellent too, but only apply a very few specialised locations.

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

Think that covers all reasonable reasons for limits -

1) Guidance
2)Enforcement
3)safety

cant think of any other reasons not as per above. Except , as in 2006, CASH

_________________
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

The "dodgy bridge" one may also be applicable in some circumstances, as currently seen on the westbound offslip at M56 J7. However in such cases the authorities ought to pull their finger out and fix the bridge

_________________
"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