Safe Speed Forums

This was the introduction to prove where these leaflets originate as some persons elsewhere are rather strange











I have reduced the image on photobucket to 50% und it still looks big on preview to me.. perhaps Paulie can sort if it gets outhand here

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

Clearly they don't have the first clue about 'why people speed'.

This page needs updating because I've now gone much further, but it has the basics: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/why.html

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

I think these two will have quite a debate


This ist the "typpical dogma" within the pack und the only bit one could really dispute to be honest. Ist toeing the party line

But even so .. the focus ist on the 30 mph zone - which ist OK.

My other furball in throat of contention ist the TVP test in same car. I think one should do an FOI to find out make of car, qualification of officer testing (und hope not related to PC Milton miaow!-ow -ow" )

Apologies if still not got the sizing right.. this scanning und bucketing thing ist new to us.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

That's very misleading information. Those traveling speeds and impact speeds are probable right if you had 23 meters to stop. What happens to the impact speed when somebody suddenly walks out in front of you and the stopping distance is reduced? To say the impact speed is zero at 30 is very misleading.

I'd say this is another leaflet for the ASA.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Surely reaction times are not shorter at higher speeds?

Reaction time is virtually the same at higher speeds; you will have travelled further before you react but the time isn't shorter.

Somebody please correct me if I’m wrong. The speeds above are Travelling Speed/ Impact Speed. Yes I agree that your reaction times are not shorter at higher speeds if you are fully concentrating on the road ahead.

Say you where travelling along a 30mph road and you where passing a bus in a lay-by, just before you get to end of the bus somebody walks out in front of of it (woops), so you straight away react by breaking, however you’re only feet away from that person. Your reaction time was spot on but because you where only feet away from that person your impact speed will be higher than it would have been if you had been yards away.

I also don’t know what car was used to carry out the test but surely Travelling speed/Impact speed would also depend on the car, some have better brakes than others, some perform better than others with different road conditions.

I still believe that the message this part of the leaflet gives out is that as long as you don’t travel above 30 in a 30 limit you are completely safe, as the impact speed will be zero, which is not the case. We don’t always have the pleasure of having 23 mtrs to stop in and won't know the road conditions.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Wow, a third of accidents are no longer caused by speed; its now 95%!

Speed is clearly the holy grail of road safety and nothing else matters.

Likewise, what if the distance you can see is clear is longer than 23 metres. 23 metres isn't that far at all on a clear road. (It could be a long way on a crowded street though.)

They have started out saying that you can't drive faster than the distance that is clear. They have then arbitarilly defined this distance as 23 metres. What's worse, they have chosen that figure purely because it happens to be the stopping distance at 30mph. They have then used this to "prove" that 30mph is the correct speed.

This why that parody "speeding is safer" video is so brilliant. It's brilliant because it's stupid and wrong, but it's exactly as stupid and wrong as the real SCP claims and 'figures'.

No, it DOESN'T say that 95% of accidents are caused by speeding. It is rather more subtle than that.

"95% of accidents are caused by speeding AND driver error". Probably correct. 5% speeding, 90% driver error.

But of course they want you to read it as 95% caused by speeding!

The majority of road crashes happen in built-up area.

About two weeks ago they where saying most crashes happen in rural roads?

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

probably because they're switching between all crashes and fatality crashes to suit their message du jour.

Yes, but your both applying common sense and interpreting.

The actual statement is:

Reactions times are shorter at faster speeds

It would be correct to say that reaction distance is longer with speed.

Also, grammatically it should be higher speeds; not faster speeds. A speed is a constant, anything faster is a higher or greater speed.

Reaction times are the same at any speed, it is just that the higher the speed you travel, the greater the distance you will cover in the time it takes you to react.

This is bloody scary- A other road users do not conveniently jump out in front of you at 23 meters ,What happens if they jump out at 22.5m? .

This is my thought experiment.

I shall start with a car and drive it 30 mph, 40mph,50mph, 60mph and 70 mph. I shall give them 96 meters to stop in.

Traveling Speed Impact speed
30 mph Nil
40 mph Nil
50 mph Nil
60 mph Nil
70 mph Nil

I have mastered SCP science.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

It'e been a long weekend, I know but something about these stats seems wonky to me.

A modern car (Golf 2.0 TDi) will stop from 60 to 0 in 2.6 seconds (checked in Autocar Mag). So given that 60mph works out at 27 metres / second is it possible to work out what the stopping distance in metres is???

_________________
Simon

Off the top of my head and assuming that it can do a 1G stop - about 33 metres (if Mr Newton is to be believed)...

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

I've finally figured it out : Die wilden Katzen einen Scanner gekauft

Sorry about that WC. My German is rather rusty since I worked in N German shipyards at least 10 yrs ago.

This stuff is just lies and fabrication. You would have to pour a cople of gallons of Diesel Oil to get the figures that TVP claim is an experiment.

As for the propaganda

STOPPING DISTANCES Why Richard C Speeds...
Being late - yes its easy to be late when travelling in UK nowadays
Lapses in concentration. Get real Lancashire. Driving at the stupidly low speed limits especially late at night is likley to lead to an accident through lack of concentration, not prevent one
Going with the flow. No way. Going with the flow, sitting next to the same vehicle on the motorway at 69 mile/h for 10 miles is hardly safe is it ? Last week of truck tyre burst while we were alongside it. Damaged a few panels and soiled the drivers underpants ( and mine nearly ) but it could have been worse. That was on the highway between Busan and Ulsan, South Korea but holds here increasingly so.
Noble Cause ??????
different vehicle/Familiarity with vehicle How long does it take to get familiar with a different vehicle for Gods sake. I hire 20 different cars a year ....maybe 3-5 miles ? Ok driving a new rally car to the limit ie trying to get that last half second a mile in the forest might take 5-15 miles of bu??????
angry/upsetIf its down to external circumstances and its really that bad, I don't drive. I have a break/get someone else to/take a train. Driving and disabling emotion don't mix.

If its other road users poor/rude/incompetent driving I simply don't. Leave them behind or let them get ahead and forget about it.
Scamera vans - give them the middle finger and horn, decisively. Great Safety valve

Roads quiet you bet. It most likely to be safe to exceed the speed limit at this time by a large margin. Watching out for the trafpol and vans enhances concentration.

Failing to observe speed limits I didn't bother to avoid stepping on the cracks in the pavement when I was 10; the bears never got me. I tend to drive safely to rado conditions. More and more oiften this is above absrdly low speed limits. Occasinally I have got flashed. Far less ocassionally I have had to take some points. Today m licence is clean. But not without some fights with the system.

Wanting to be in front Not really. Wanting to arrive at the end of a journey without needless stress from others driving unpredicatably in an attempt to keep their licences maybe.
Think you can get away with a bit extra Meaning drive faster that the limit. In many places YES, In some places definitely NO. About 15% of the time I find myself being tailgated and sometimes overtaken by (many) who want to drive at the limit but I am not happy because of the circumstances
Racing Err No I pay a lot to do that in the forest. Where its safe for me and everyone eles.
Think you can stop I have stopped comfortably on nearly every occasion in about a million miles motoring. I have hadless than 10 occasions where while stopping I had question myself whether I was going to do so. Apart from one occasion down to sheer lack of observation and anticipation on my part which led to a walking speed shunt ( Thanks for the continuous COAST message WC ) I can say resoundingly YES

I was thinking about this last night while driving in fog, and it occured to me that 23 metres is less than a quarter the distance (100m) where visibility is considered to be so restricted that fog lights must be used. If you can't be sure that it's clear 23m ahead, you have much bigger problems than a camera van, and had better be proceeding with extreme caution.

Of course, on any kind of decent road, especially all these dual carriageways with 30 limits where the cameras are so popular, that distance is far too close in front to be of any practical significance at all.

Yes. Normal hazard perception is well over 5 seconds ahead or at least 220 feet at 30mph. The following chart applies more to 60mph roads, although the principles are identical:



From http://www.safespeed.org.uk/inattention.html

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

Hi Richard C

Wildy has asked me to reply as she intended .. but you know wimmin..

Firstly she thinks you have good command of her lingo.. (you missed "haben" as part of the perfect tense.. but even so.. my wife reckons you have grammar, syntax and feel correct. She's delighted as she does hold languages close to heart. Her other Euro languages are faultless and we have none of the rather silly oddness when she speaks and types in those lingos. Only in English.. but I suppose she has to be allowed some weak errors..

Yep .. we finally figured out how to upload stuff to post as photo/scan. We never really wanted to host or scan stuff prevously and we still send photos of our kids/selves to family here and abroad via normal post


Still think my old fashioned SLR with my filters creates better photos. The only good thing with my digital version.. see image immediately and can discard at will. Also .. bought a Canon EOS digital on basis that my existing lens collection interchange. We do have Pentax and Nikon and will have to rebuild lens equipment for the digital versions.

Yeah.. we are keen photographers and I reckon we have same enthusiasm for our "quieter" hobby as our speedy "go-cat -go" ones

_________________
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.