Safe Speed Forums

You're right, I spend my time looking ahead and around for hazards and maintaining an appropriate speed in response to the hazards - a speed I can judge for myself without needing to resort to a speedometer to verify I'm within some multiple of 10 on an arbitary imperial measurement scale.

And if you can glance at your speedometer, register the reading and refocus within a third of a second then you're superhuman. I am 29, have never had any problems at all with vision yet I would reckon it takes me about 1 second to complete the speedo-check cycle. How exactly did you arrive at such an exact figure of 0.3333333 seconds? Or does it correlate to your obsession with exact numerical speeds?

_________________
Why can't we just use Common Sense?

Firstly to clear up a few points of incorrect assumptions on your part:

1) According to my optician my corrected eyesight is above average for my age. The condition of presbyopia does not make my eyesight bad; it makes my ability to change focus from near to far both restricted and more time-consuming. Both of thse afflictions are overcome almost fully if I chose to wear varifocals, which I do, for everything EXCEPT driving. I choose to wear monofocal corrections for driving as it enhances my hazard perception. I get all-round peripheral vision (including mirrors, side windows etc) as well as straight ahead, all at the same focus - near to infinity. I lose out on being able to read instruments and the like - but have a good array of warning lights which are sufficiently different in shape, colour and position that a glance truly is all that is necessary to establish if anything needs attention in that area.

2) A glance at a speedo in all but the very brightest of light conditions (when the pupil is stopped down) won't do it without refocussing. If at 40 you can do this to an adequate degree (without bi or varifocals) then you are indeed above average in terms of presbyopia affliction.

3) Did I say it was ok to speed? It is NOT ok to exceed the speed at which one becomes unsafe. That may or may not be above the lolipop figure. Driving in excesss of the posted limit (or even inadvertently slipping to in excess of it for a tiny time) is committing a moving traffic offence. That makes it wrong. It does not make it dangerous.

Now to turn to a few of your contentions:



Paradoxically, were the speedo in the footwell, a glance would be adequate to take in its reading and still maintain forward peripheral vision, as it would be sufficiently far away so as not to require a focus-pull. It is not the angle between the view ahead and the instrument that is the problem, it's the number of dioptres of focus power change between the two distances that matters.


The peripheral vision sees the speeder in the mirror without actually LOOKINg in the mirror. Having noted the presence of something going the wrong way in the mirror (ie coming closer rather than receding like the rest of the background) one makes a conscious effort to keep an eye on that activity - adaptive rear viewing - more of it and more consciously when needed.


No I didn't. That is both wrong and offensive; I invite you to withdraw the allegation.


This is indeed a difficult question. Putting aside your fixation with the verb to speed for a moment... did I really give the impression of importance, anger and being deserved of the right to speed? Oh dear, sorry. I really didn't mean to do so. For the avoidance of doubt, I consider the most important person on the road at any one time (and by road I include pavement) the one who is en pris or most vulnerable to activity I may be doing. I do my level best to kerb anger. In fact, since taking a step back several years ago, thanks principally to this very forum, I believe I have learned to maintain calm in situations that would make the average motorist boil over. As to "right to speed" - no. When one exceeds a speed limit one is committing an offence. This used to be policed with appropriate sensitivity. Now, sadly, it is policed with a blunt instrument and is brainwashing people, such as yourself, to place the absolute numerical speed on a greater place in the hierarchy of driving skills than it ought to be for optimum safety.

Roger - i fear we have a troll - i am 50+ and i do not find any problems ( apart from typos) transferring my gaze from speedo to road. Suspect that this another troll idea to get an arguement going on vision.

_________________
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

Botach - are you saying you can glance at the speedo to take in a reading, then come back up to the road, in a fraction of a second, without bi/varifocals? I don't care for Mosis's tone in certain area; I don't (yet) rate his contribution as trolling, but I do see a closed mind. I am trying genuinely to put myself in his place to make sure I've not overlooked something in my deductions. I don't think I have, but remain open-minded.

Roger - not yet an ancient - i need glasses for PC/ READING - but yes - i drive - i look at speedo - both my car and works van , and i can still see problems on road - perhaps it is due to years of experiance , but yes , my variable vision is not impared -at 50+ this function is not impaired( except in eyes of trol) --i actualy see road problems ahead of younger blokes in passenger seat.( then i have to say why i moved lanes on M/way -to let some one out /in , and suddenly they see why)

_________________
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

Perhaps Mosis is right. Perhaps my eyesight is bad! I shall re-examine my need to look at the speedo, and if it goes up the list, I'll consider spending a small fortune on varifocals where the peripheral vision is far better than the pair I have.

I spend 90% of my time looking at the road ahead probably, I haven't yet found a way to accurately measure it.
So you're suggesting that because I HAVE got 20/20 vision, and because I CAN focus and re-focus on the speedo and the view outside in a split second, and because I CAN read my speedo in less than a third of a second, and because I DON'T speed, I am somehow a menace?

Why are none of the speeders here happy to have yearly driving tests introduced? I thought you were all in favour of improving road safety, and are convinced that somehow, magically, if we were all allowed to speed, only the safe, caring drivers (like you, of course...) would speed, and the incompetent and poorly sighted would magically stay at the speed limit.

What exactly is the purpose of this site? It's for a group of selfish people, who are always in a hurry, can't leave for work on time, can't cope with being 'trapped' in a traffic jam, to vent their spleen, and justify their selfish, law-breaking actions. Behind all of this is EMOTION, nothing else. All of your intellectual attempts to explain why you need to speed, yet I don't, are just a cover for the real problem: you aren't happy when you drive, your heart rates (all of them) go off the scale at the slightest perceived 'problem', and you and your ilk are responsible for thousands of 'accidents' every year.

One of my first posts here was about introducing YEARLY driving tests, to get all the bad drivers off the road, and to force the rest of us to buck up our ideas. Who supports it?

You really don't have the first idea what this site is all about, do you?
But that's OK, you have your own preconceived ideas about us, and nothing is going to change them, is it?
So, why bother - you know it all already, so why not go waste your time somewhere else.

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

We all have to refocus if looking from a distant object to a near one. I didn't deny that. I just said that it takes me an imperceptibly short time - since you have such a problem doing this basic (and important) task repeatedly, shouldn't you be trying to fix this problem? Can you see your rev. counter? What you have admitted here is that YOU have an inability to see what's on your own dashboard properly, without it taking you so long that you lose sight of what's on the road ahead of you. So you think it's acceptable for you to continue driving, even though you no longer know what speed you are going at! So you then 'redefine' the speed limit and now call it 'safe speed' not 'posted' or 'legal speed'. Why not just fix the problem with the glasses you need?

[/quote]
And, of course, YOU get to decide, as and when it suits YOU, on all roads, in all sorts of conditions. Not those wretched planners, who of course know nothing about every road in the country, the accident rates, etc. compared to YOU.

But again I ask - WHO gets to decide? WHO is going to decide that your speeding is 'dangerous', as well as the tens of millions of other drivers, all over the country, ALL the time? Do we just have a free for all? Why do you feel the need to go faster than the posted speed? I would love to know. Therein lies the real problem - your problem. I have never once in my twenty years of driving felt like I needed to go faster than the speed limit.


Paradoxically, were the speedo in the footwell, a glance would be adequate to take in its reading and still maintain forward peripheral vision, as it would be sufficiently far away so as not to require a focus-pull.


[/quote]
You are speaking, again, about your own bad eyesight here. It would not take me any more time (at least, not measurable in less than hundredths of a second) to refocus.



I never said it was the angle - I was merely saying that because the angle is small with the speedo mounted where it is, I can clearly see the car in front in my peripheral vision.



The peripheral vision sees the speeder in the mirror without actually LOOKINg in the mirror. Having noted the presence of something going the wrong way in the mirror (ie coming closer rather than receding like the rest of the background) one makes a conscious effort to keep an eye on that activity - adaptive rear viewing - more of it and more consciously when needed.

[/quote]
If you're keeping an eye on it, I presume you dare to look at it sometimes... Careful though - you might crash into something in front of you!


No I didn't. That is both wrong and offensive; I invite you to withdraw the allegation.

[/quote]
Why would that be 'offensive'? Because you're incapable of focussing properly while driving a car, you claim it's 'offensive'? It's not me who's driving around with poor vision.


This is indeed a difficult question. Putting aside your fixation with the verb to speed for a moment... did I really give the impression of importance, anger and being deserved of the right to speed? Oh dear, sorry. I really didn't mean to do so. For the avoidance of doubt, I consider the most important person on the road at any one time (and by road I include pavement) the one who is en pris or most vulnerable to activity I may be doing. I do my level best to kerb anger. In fact, since taking a step back several years ago, thanks principally to this very forum, I believe I have learned to maintain calm in situations that would make the average motorist boil over.

[/quote]
Well I've never had to 'maintain calm' because I've never felt anger while driving. Could it be because I have absolute confidence in my own driving abilities, and, especially, my own sight?




"Appropriate sensitivity" - how quaint. People who are impatient, selfish scumbags will always speed. They think the world revolves around them. Speeding is the quickest and easiest way to recognise such a person. Are you suggesting that a selfish, nasty person would drive only AT or UNDER the speed limit? Or wear their seatbelt? People like this are highly predictable - they hate the 'system' telling them what to do. Do you think that uninsured drivers get caught by the police because they drive too well?

Please explain to me:
1) Why you think it is acceptable for you to be driving on our roads when your re-focussing time is so slow that you cannot safely see what speed you are going at. (And yes, I know you claim to be able to tell what a 'dangerous' speed is, but you can tell how fast you are going by how quickly objects are moving past you - which requires you to follow them as they come closer to you - thereby requiring you to refocus...
2) Why you think you or anybody else should be allowed to speed. Since you can't physically check your speedo, you are highly liable to be breaking the law every time you drive. Who gets to decide who the special people are who are competent enough to speed?
3) If you support yearly driving tests. Perhaps if the speeders here supported yearly driving tests, and passed them ten years in a row, they would have some justification for claiming that they, and only they, can drive above the speed limit, as long as it's 'safe'. (I don't think that breaking the speed limit automatically means you are driving dangerously, but it's all a matter of degree, and since most people are bloody incompetent drivers when they stay UNDER the speed limit, we can expect a lot more misery in the form of 'accidents' if such people are allowed to go even faster.
4) Why you want to go faster than the posted speed limit. This one I have never been able to comprehend.

I would support some kind of re-testing as I believe bad habits are picked up by a lot of drivers, (and not cracked down on due to the lack of Patrol Officers these days). However, I believe yearly is unnecessarily frequent - maybe every 5-10 years though; more frequent for drivers found to have caused accidents or convicted of offences such as drink-driving.

As for the rest of your post - it's simply not worth answering as it's a load of ignorant, close-minded waffle. Typical troll!!

_________________
Why can't we just use Common Sense?

Did I say it was exactly 0.3333 seconds? I know it's a very short time because I can do it while sat at my PC- I can look out of the window, then back at the screen and see where one of the hands is on my clock on my desk in front of me, in the blink of an eye - i.e. if I just look out the window and glance back in, then glance back out, while saying 'One Mississipi', I get to about 'One M'.

Still, it's nice of you to admit that you also don't know what actual speed you are driving at. Do you EVER look at the speedo? When you join a motorway, do you not try to get up to 60mph before you get to the top of the ramp? If so, how do you KNOW how fast you're going? How do you know if you're going to be going at the same speed as the cars coming up on your right when they're above you and behind you, and you can't compare your speed to any of them?

Do I have to spell this out? Who taught you to drive? Did they tell you to check your speedo and your mirrors? My instructor did, and he was also a fireman, who spent his evenings cutting people out of cars. Not once did he suggest to me that it was okay to speed, quite the opposite. Why do you think that is?

Enlighten me. Explain to me why you even WANT to speed. So far none of you have even tried, because that's the real issue with you all - you feel trapped in your cars when you aren't going really fast. But you're already going fast! The only problem is, you'll only find this out when you hit something...

You said one third of a second. In decimal notation that is 0.3 recurring. So no not exactly 0.3333 seconds but with an infinite number of 3s after the decimal point, (or you could use the mathematical notation of one 3 with a dot over it)



I don't need to know what my mph is to match motorway speeds. By using mirrors, observation and judgement I can accelerate up to speed, match that of the lane I'm joining and time my run up to slot safely into a gap. In fact, that's one of the most dangerous situations to be staring at a speedometer during. If you seriously need to look at a speedomoeter in such a situation, then you obviously have awful anticipation and perception - typical of very dangerous and poor drivers.



Yes I do check my mirrors regularly, and yes I do check my speedo but that's more to ensure legal compliance - safety I'm very good at judging myself as I have perception and anticipation. Two attributes you obviously lack if you need to watch your speedo when accelerating onto a motorway.

And he probably never suggested you speed as that results in driving test failure - legal compliance of technicalities is mandatory for passing it.

_________________
Why can't we just use Common Sense?

And what happens when you get to the end of the slip road, finally catch your first sight of the traffic in L1, and realise they're all heading towards your backside at 70-80 as opposed to the 60 you assumed they'd be doing? Do you just pull into L1 still doing 60 and force them to brake, or do you observe their rate of closure relative to you and adjust speed accordingly? And assuming the latter, do you need to check your speedo at any point during this adjustment process?




Ask most people for their recollections of driving lessons, particularly with regards to the selection of an appropriate speed, and you'll find they say the same thing - their instructors told them not to exceed the limit, but also to keep pace with other traffic whenever these two conditions were compatible. In other words, it's not quite the opposite, because instructors DO tell their students that it's OK to be driving right on the limit in the appropriate conditions, NOT that it's OK for them to be dawdling along 5+mph below the limit unless there's a damn good reason for it.

_________________
Chris

I don't WANT to speed. What I WANT to do is drive my car WITHOUT the speedo (and the minutiae of the position of the needle thereon) being the most important focus of my control if I do not want points on my licence, a hiked insurance premium and a hard vacuum where the contents of my wallet used to be. I do not agree with Government/Corporate greed, especially from a Government that, by its own admission (and allowing for its inflated statistics) is ignoring 2/3rds of the cause of road casualties. The reason I am a member of this site is to communicate with fellows who rail against the hypocrisy that is modern transport law - motorists are a fat, juicy cash-cow to be milked mercilessly, and some blood in the milk does not taint it as far as Nu Labia are concerned. The Councils, starved of money by Whitehall, jump readily on the milking stool and join in for all they are worth with parking scams and bizarre speed-limit setting.

The standard of driving in this country has become crap as machines replace Trafpol, with the crappiest driving executed well below the roundel speed-limit.

If you find the views on this site too irritating, leave it. Go to BRAKE! where you will be a 'hail fellow, well met'.

_________________
Aquila



Licat volare si super tergum aquila volat...

Brilliantly said

Might I also add that if drivers are trained and educated enough then there would be no need at all for speedometers or speed limits.

_________________
Why can't we just use Common Sense?

Cobblers. I feel no more "trapped" in my car doing a steady 30 through the middle of town than I do doing a steady 70 on the motorway. Yet how can this be, given that my speed in town is less than half that on the motorway... It's not about the absolute speed, it's about the speed relative to the road conditions - how driving that stretch of road feels at a given speed in the given conditions.


Question. If you drove a stretch of road one day where the posted limit was 50, but the next day you drove the same stretch of road and saw that the posted limit had been changed to 70 without any other changes being made to the road, would you continue sticking to 50?

_________________
Chris

Nemesis:- Thank you for your plaudit, sir! I would also modify your caveat to read 'and of sufficient intelligence'. There are people whose powers of reasoning are severely genetically-challenged, but still hold driving licences...

Twister:- By mosis's reasoning, he would drive the Hardnott/Wrynose Passes at 60 mph as that is the roundel limit - a feat I would sell tickets to witness..!

_________________
Aquila



Licat volare si super tergum aquila volat...

{my bold}
I have a means to fix it - the glasses which I take off and swap for monofocals the moment I get in the driving seat of the car. I dispute "important".

The rev counter has a defined red zone, and a trained glance without refocussing is adequate to determine visually whether I'm in the red. Having said that, I drive an auto which will not enter the red zone in "drive". Also, the rev of the car can be determined by the performance in a given gear and the engine sound to a more-than-adequate degree for normal road driving. Were I in a competition I'd fit two bulbs in peripheral vision on the top of the dash - one each (rev) side of the optimum gearchange point.


Yes. And what you've assumed is that I've no other means to check that my numerical speed is within that prescribed by law, that I might overrev the engine, that I'd not notice a fan belt break, that I'd not realise the need to refuel....

Here you go again - obsession with speed. I drive to conditions. The time it takes me to recheck numerical speed is such that I don't do it as often as you - I pick my moments. I am pleased to advise that, within tolerance, my prior opinion of numerical speed from many other factors, matches that indicated by the speedo.

No. I regulate my speed to match hazard density and prevailing conditions, one of which is the numerically posted speed limit. Depending on enforcement severity, this last (arbitrary from a safety aspect) point may be elevated on a transient basis to take a higher than desireable (from a safety perspective) place in the hierarchy.


Because the side effects of possibly misjudging speed of objects in peripheral vision thanks to the variability of the power of the lenses is to my mind too great a trade off. It would place the wrong emphasis on my priorities and make me less safe.


Yes. You're getting there. The posted limits do not vary with time of day, weather conditions, parked car concentration... Fortunately my (continually reassing) choice of speed does.

We all do this all the time. Some place a heavier reliance on the speed limit than others, but we all choose our rate of progress. Fortunately we all do it fairly well. If we didn't we'd all end up in heaps like skittles having been "striked".


With the exception of motorways and roads which have artificially low limits to appease the crowds and scamerati, I am pleased to confirm that my desired rate of progress is nearly always at or lower than the posted limit. There are specific occasions where it is safer to exceed a posted limit - where visibility ahead is restricted on a transient basis but prior observation has confirmed a clear stretch is one such example.


Please can you endulge me here and do the experiment that Paul devised for speedo time-to-check? It's defined around 2/3 through this page I would welcome your opinion on the validity of this test and love to know your result.


Because you are making assumptions in a derrogatory way about what you thought I meant to say, wrongly, and then quoting it as fact - and with CAPITALISED EMPHASIS. That is why it is offensive, but no matter.

No - bacause you wrongly claim to know what I intended to say and quote it as fact.

I find it incongruous that you've never felt anger when behind the wheel given that you've been driving 20 years. Unless I'm mistaken, you've been posting elsewhere on this board about wanting to film other drivers committing offences. What has fuelled that desire if not anger?


Maintaining a safety cocoon of time is paramount. This one can do without looking at anything within the car. As to absolute numerical speed, I can determine this from external influences to a sufficiently accurate degree.


Class 1 Hendon-trained traffic police used to make very effective judgement of this in yesteryear. Exceeding the speed limit is an absolute offence. Policed with appropriate sensitivity it gives police power of education as well as a means to prosecute where required.


I would have no problem being reassessed for driving competence on a regular basis. Whether annually is the right frequency I am unsure, but in principle I have no problem whatever with this.


Unless dictated by circumstances of emergency, I want to travel at the speed that minimises overall risk in all situations. Sometimes this is in excess of the posted limit.

I really have tried to answer your questions here. The only parts I've nhot bothered to include above from your long post are the banal point-scoring parts where no new points are raised. However, if you feel I've left anything out, please advise.

Even 'perfect' human vision has pretty severe limitations.

Peripheral vision is useful, certainly, but the resolution is VERY poor - try reading with it! Impossible! Often peripheral vision can altert us to road hazards - that's very important to safe driving. But many important clues to hazards will never be spotted by peripheral vision. Sometimes all you get is a shadow beyond a parked van to warn you of a pedestrian emerging. If you're checking the speedo at the time you WILL miss the clue.

As for how long it takes to check the speedo, I devised a test. Have a go, you might be surprised. It's on: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speedo.html

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