RE: 'Speed kills' policy unsafe: campaign
Discussion
MrKipling43 said:
The problem here gentlemen is that, in a rather cunning PR move, this has been released at that most extreme scraping of the news barrel time of the year: silly season. No Parliament means no 'real' politics (if that's what it can be described as) to report, giving undue attention to statistical manipulation like this.
I can't even be arsed to go into all the reasons it's wrong - I'm pretty sure they've been covered.
However, I do have a suggestion aside from the letter writing to put forward. In the event that this 30mph rubbish does go ahead, I propose the planning of a route through some of the B roads with new limits around the UK - possibly several events happening at the same time around the country. We then get as many people as we can to drive, en mass, up to the sixty limit along the route in as safer fashion as we can - briskly, but cautiously based on the 'old' speed limit.
They can't nick everyone, and this is the sort of story the media love.. if it was done in a way that promoted the reasons discussed here and involved Safe Speed (they're clearly getting a very high media profile) it could get really good press. Get some racing drivers involved, I'm sure the IAM would support it - try to get the idea back into peoples' heads that driving a car is basically no different to flying a helicopter, operating a crane or whatever. It is a machine that you are operating... the human is the weak link.
On the subject of racing drivers, would you be able to get a stretch of road closed for a 'look how fast this car can go round bends - it's not speed that causes crashes it's s*it drivers' type demo?
Actually, to hell with waiting - we should be doing this now. Aside fom anything, no one will get points! In fact, I'm going to call Paul tomorrow. What say you?
I can't even be arsed to go into all the reasons it's wrong - I'm pretty sure they've been covered.
However, I do have a suggestion aside from the letter writing to put forward. In the event that this 30mph rubbish does go ahead, I propose the planning of a route through some of the B roads with new limits around the UK - possibly several events happening at the same time around the country. We then get as many people as we can to drive, en mass, up to the sixty limit along the route in as safer fashion as we can - briskly, but cautiously based on the 'old' speed limit.
They can't nick everyone, and this is the sort of story the media love.. if it was done in a way that promoted the reasons discussed here and involved Safe Speed (they're clearly getting a very high media profile) it could get really good press. Get some racing drivers involved, I'm sure the IAM would support it - try to get the idea back into peoples' heads that driving a car is basically no different to flying a helicopter, operating a crane or whatever. It is a machine that you are operating... the human is the weak link.
On the subject of racing drivers, would you be able to get a stretch of road closed for a 'look how fast this car can go round bends - it's not speed that causes crashes it's s*it drivers' type demo?
Actually, to hell with waiting - we should be doing this now. Aside fom anything, no one will get points! In fact, I'm going to call Paul tomorrow. What say you?
I very much doubt you'll get the IAM to support anything illegal for starters.
What's how fast a racing driver can go around a bend got to do with it ?
Every "ordinary" family saloon can outrun a limit point, so what's that going to prove, other than such driving is exactly what shouldn't be happening.
I don't see how someone driving faster than the distance they can see to be clear helps your case at all.
Leeds City Council changed the Limit Between Roundhay Park and The Ring Road roundabout on the Wetherby road from NSL to 40. Within a few months there was a fatal accident in which a Father died and thankfully his children survived. Another stick in the eye for Philip Gywnne, another tragedy caused by short sighted "experts". Bring in somebody who has read Leeming's reports.
vonhosen said:
What's how fast a racing driver can go around a bend got to do with it ?
Everything, it shows that speed alone and of itself is mostly irrelevant in road safety terms, which anyone who's read into road safety more deeply than a Ladyman briefing will know anyway.vonhosen said:
Every "ordinary" family saloon can outrun a limit point, so what's that going to prove, other than such driving is exactly what shouldn't be happening.
Why not corner at speed, if it's safe? You've assumed it isn't, for no reason. The post was made in the context of successfully negotiating the corner so we must presume the conditions were suitable, and supported it, quite apart from the road closure. Why assume it would be done in other circumstances? The whole point was to show - and it would work - that speed fixation is a blind alley in safety terms, as DfT and hospital stats for the last half dozen years already showvonhosen said:
I don't see how someone driving faster than the distance they can see to be clear helps your case at all.
Another assumption? Only speed was mentioned, not the relation with distance seen to be clear. Good to see you focusing on something useful (rather than speed). turbobloke said:
vonhosen said:
What's how fast a racing driver can go around a bend got to do with it ?
Everything, it shows that speed alone and of itself is mostly irrelevant in road safety terms, which anyone who's read into road safety more deeply than a Ladyman briefing will know anyway.vonhosen said:
Every "ordinary" family saloon can outrun a limit point, so what's that going to prove, other than such driving is exactly what shouldn't be happening.
Why not corner at speed, if it's safe? You've assumed it isn't, for no reason. The post was made in the context of successfully negotiating the corner so we must presume the conditions were suitable, and supported it, quite apart from the road closure. Why assume it would be done in other circumstances? The whole point was to show - and it would work - that speed fixation is a blind alley in safety terms, as DfT and hospital stats for the last half dozen years already showvonhosen said:
I don't see how someone driving faster than the distance they can see to be clear helps your case at all.
Another assumption? Only speed was mentioned, not the relation with distance seen to be clear. Good to see you focusing on something useful (rather than speed).Why do you need a racing driver to drive a vehicle through a bend at a speed they can stop within the distance they can see to be clear ?
What's it proving ?
Because they can negotiate bend "A" at 80mph what does that prove in relation to Mrs Miggins in her 15 year old Metro, whom the legislation is also for ?
We have offensive weapon legislation because "some", not all carry knives for the wrong reasons, but it applies to us all.
We have speed limits because "some", not all are incapable of always choosing appropriate speeds in all circumstances without an upper limit or dealing safely with large differentials no limits could create, but it applies to us all.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 8th August 23:18
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 8th August 23:19
You obviously didn't read to the end of the post, vonhosen. I said that we should be doing it now.
Also, the whole point of having a racing driver razzing round a country road would be to prove that it isn't speed that causes accidents, it's poor driving. You could demonstrate in a clear fashion that if the driver is good enough speed becomes irrelevant - ie it becomes a question of how you talent relates to the talent of your car. For example, I can drive my 106 beyond it's limits and remain in control... as in I'm confident that at the speeds it can achieve, I'm good enough to recover small slides and what-not, not drive it as quick as a racer! I've had quite a bit of track tuition (through my job) and experience in much quicker cars in controlled conditions, including in my own car. Having said that, if I were to attempt to drive a _insert anything other than a front drive hot hatch_ carelessly to the same percentage (if you like) of the car's potential ability, I would probably end up having an accident. I wouldn't do that of course, because I'm not a moron
It's simply making an irrefutable point that speed DOES NOT cause accidents.
Also, the whole point of having a racing driver razzing round a country road would be to prove that it isn't speed that causes accidents, it's poor driving. You could demonstrate in a clear fashion that if the driver is good enough speed becomes irrelevant - ie it becomes a question of how you talent relates to the talent of your car. For example, I can drive my 106 beyond it's limits and remain in control... as in I'm confident that at the speeds it can achieve, I'm good enough to recover small slides and what-not, not drive it as quick as a racer! I've had quite a bit of track tuition (through my job) and experience in much quicker cars in controlled conditions, including in my own car. Having said that, if I were to attempt to drive a _insert anything other than a front drive hot hatch_ carelessly to the same percentage (if you like) of the car's potential ability, I would probably end up having an accident. I wouldn't do that of course, because I'm not a moron
It's simply making an irrefutable point that speed DOES NOT cause accidents.
Edited by MrKipling43 on Tuesday 8th August 23:20
MrKipling43 said:
You obviously didn't read to the end of the post, vonhosen. I said that we should be doing it now.
Also, the whole point of having a racing driver razzing round a country road would be to prove that it isn't speed that causes accidents, it's poor driving. You could demonstrate in a clear fashion that if the driver is good enough speed becomes irrelevant - ie it becomes a question of how you talent relates to the talent of your car. For example, I can drive my 106 beyond it's limits and remain in control... as in I'm confident that at the speeds it can achieve, I'm good enough to recover small slides and what-not, not drive it as quick as a racer! I've had quite a bit of track tuition (through my job) and experience in much quicker cars in controlled conditions, including in my own car. Having said that, if I were to attempt to drive a _insert anything other than a front drive hot hatch_ carelessly to the same percentage (if you like) of the car's potential ability, I would probably end up having an accident. I wouldn't do that of course, because I'm not a moron
Also, the whole point of having a racing driver razzing round a country road would be to prove that it isn't speed that causes accidents, it's poor driving. You could demonstrate in a clear fashion that if the driver is good enough speed becomes irrelevant - ie it becomes a question of how you talent relates to the talent of your car. For example, I can drive my 106 beyond it's limits and remain in control... as in I'm confident that at the speeds it can achieve, I'm good enough to recover small slides and what-not, not drive it as quick as a racer! I've had quite a bit of track tuition (through my job) and experience in much quicker cars in controlled conditions, including in my own car. Having said that, if I were to attempt to drive a _insert anything other than a front drive hot hatch_ carelessly to the same percentage (if you like) of the car's potential ability, I would probably end up having an accident. I wouldn't do that of course, because I'm not a moron
I've never said speed in itself is dangerous.
Legislation is there because we aren't all great drivers & we don't all make great choices where speed is concerned.
It doesn't have to just cause a collision, it's the increased risk & the contributory factor that also has to be considered in both the happening & the resulting severity of any collision.
If we were all fantastic we wouldn't need speed limits, but we're not.
Almost daily I drive far in excess of the limit & also far under it at times, so I'd hardly say that speed has to be dangerous. By doing what I do though I am quite aware of the extra risk it carries, particularly where it's unsuitable.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 8th August 23:33
vonhosen said:
We have speed limits because...
ALmost - we have "largely inappropriate" speed limits, and unfit policies, and it's because people who know very little about road safety are allowed to dictate nonsense to councils who follow blindly what they are told under threat of penalty. You implied it yourself - travelling at a distance you can see to be clear is generally safe. This will entail exceeding almost all speed limits outside the rush hour, because speed limits are now set based on the article of faith / blind belief that slower is safer, when it just isn't so.
The only reason Ladyman and other ignorant incompetents get away with it is because so few people have the time or the inclination to read the real research on road safety and so remain fairly gullible in the face of plausible untruths. Outside of the self justifying reasoning-by-assertion and recycling ignorance worlds of the DfT and police propaganda machines, nobody believes a word of it, and for good reason.
The whole edifice of government road safety thinking (the word 'thinking' flatters it) is a transparent sham.
vonhosen said:
If we were all fantastic we wouldn't need speed limits, but we're not.
Hey, I'm crap at DYI (Do Yourself an Injury) some are even worse and manage to kill themselves, at a higher rate than you might believe
should we impose restrictive legislation here too? How about extreme sports, dangerous pets, challenging trousers?
perhaps these are a little too much like hard work and not black and white enough to return some cash
apache said:
vonhosen said:
If we were all fantastic we wouldn't need speed limits, but we're not.
Hey, I'm crap at DYI (Do Yourself an Injury) some are even worse and manage to kill themselves, at a higher rate than you might believe
should we impose restrictive legislation here too?It's there already, you can't fit a gas boiler & you can't rewire your house.
apache said:
How about extreme sports, dangerous pets, challenging trousers?
perhaps these are a little too much like hard work and not black and white enough to return some cash
You'll find health & safety regs applying to those who supply the opportunity to participate in extreme sports etc.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 8th August 23:36
vonhosen said:
It's there already, you can't fit a gas boiler & you can't rewire your house.
You're right, I can't, plumbing and domestic electrics are a no-go-zone here. vonhosen said:
You'll find health & safety regs applying to those who supply the opportunity to participate in extreme sports etc.
Yes there will soon be a reg saying we have to collect our intestinal gas in a jar. Over-regulation through bureaucratic pettiness simply reduces the effectiveness of all regulations - very reminiscent of speed limits - and is the hallmark of an interfering administration which thinks it knows better than everyone else when in fact it knows much less than it thinks. Half baked anti-car ideology is all there is behind most of it. Road safety is the loser. apache said:
Hey TB, how are ya, I've given up on all this, logic, science, morality it all is bollox when it comes down to it. The bottom line is figures on the balance sheet and as long as we have people like VH keeping us in line it aint gonna change
Hi, OK thanks. Been working away on and off. Agreed, but times will change, it just takes time. There really is no way to hide the truth permanently.
De-skilling is the best description of what is happening here. Today everybody needs tons of electronic aids to be barely able to keep the car moving. Few people get trained in doing an emergency stop, proper cornering and stuff like that. Best speed limit then is "0" so 99.9% of accidents involving motor cars are avoided...
vonhosen said:
apache said:
vonhosen said:
If we were all fantastic we wouldn't need speed limits, but we're not.
Hey, I'm crap at DYI (Do Yourself an Injury) some are even worse and manage to kill themselves, at a higher rate than you might believe
should we impose restrictive legislation here too?It's there already, you can't fit a gas boiler & you can't rewire your house.
Good point, apart from the fact that you can *if you have the ability and qualification to do so*.
This legislation is there to protect the public through enforcing a skill set as oppose to de-skilling.
The difference is that the Corgi and other systems work without being counterproductive to safety which most speed limiting is, and does not disenfranchise the majority of the population to protect us from the doofuses of the world or 'Mrs Migginses'. Doofus will do it anyway regardless of legislation in the same way he will break the limit whatever it is. Mrs Miggins who is also unqualified will never attempt to fit her own bolier in the same way she usually never get anywhere near the speed limit anyway!
Thus whilst the huge majority of the public is already protected anyway by a large majority of safe drivers, it is those who are disenfranchised to protect us from Mrs Miggins and Doofus. However, as science and statistics have shown this does not work, and all it promotes is even less excellence in driving ability.
Edited by justinp1 on Wednesday 9th August 10:18
justinp1 said:
vonhosen said:
apache said:
vonhosen said:
If we were all fantastic we wouldn't need speed limits, but we're not.
Hey, I'm crap at DYI (Do Yourself an Injury) some are even worse and manage to kill themselves, at a higher rate than you might believe
should we impose restrictive legislation here too?It's there already, you can't fit a gas boiler & you can't rewire your house.
Good point, apart from the fact that you can *if you have the ability and qualification to do so*.
This legislation is there to protect the public through enforcing a skill set as oppose to de-skilling.
The difference is that the Corgi and other systems work without being counterproductive to safety which most speed limiting is, and does not disenfranchise the majority of the population to protect us from the doofuses of the world or 'Mrs Migginses'. Doofus will do it anyway regardless of legislation in the same way he will break the limit whatever it is. Mrs Miggins who is also unqualified will never attempt to fit her own bolier in the same way she usually never get anywhere near the speed limit anyway!
Thus whilst the huge majority of the public is already protected anyway by a large majority of safe drivers, it is those who are disenfranchised to protect us from Mrs Miggins and Doofus. However, as science and statistics have shown this does not work, and all it promotes is even less excellence in driving ability.
Edited by justinp1 on Wednesday 9th August 10:18
And the law also allows them that have a justfiable need & are suitably trained to exceed the speed limits (ie Fire, Ambulance & Police) where necessary.
Doofus will break the speed limit still also & he'll be prosecuted if caught, just like he would if he was caught rewiring his house.
I've said before I am not myself fundamentally opposed to tiered licencing, I just don't see it very likely at the moment.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 9th August 10:42
vonhosen said:
Doofus will break the speed limit still also & he'll be prosecuted if caught, just like he would if he was caught rewiring his house.
Classify Doofus.
From my experience I can rewire just as proficiently as many registered electricians because I choose to be good at what I do.
Perhaps if a registered electrician saw the work before I was prosecuted he could say "job well done", much like a Plod seeing a sportscar being driven well at speed may well leave them on their way.
But today it's blinkered prosecuting ignoring any facts. It's simple government nannying. You CAN do that, you CAN'T do that. We know best, you will obey. Don't break our random made up laws because we think we know what we are talking about.
Today speeding, tomorrow DIY, shortly it'll be sexual relations with an un-married partner... Orwells 1984 here we come!
Thanks but no thanks.
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
vonhosen said:
If we were all fantastic we wouldn't need speed limits, but we're not.
Thats ignorant...
If we are not fantastic and we can't realise that our speed is inappropriate then we shouldn't be on the road.
If people in old Metro's know the limit is 60mph then why try attain it?
Afterall the limit is a maximum, not a target, so for poorer drivers there is nothing forcing them to go above 40mph if that is what they are comfortable with.
The limit could be 100mph, if people can't find the appropriate places to go 100mph safely then they are not going to find appropriate places to go 60mph safely, nor places to go 40mph safely!
The speed limit is a sign, it's irrelevant to driving. Remove a speedo from a car and drivers would focus on the road conditions for the appropriate speed, which has more information that a single number on a sign which is a guessed appropriate maximum, and probably misleading for many who probably shouldn't be on the roads to start with.
Anyway, I never signed up for Ladyboy or the rest of his chronies to represent me, so he can go swivel!
Dave
We all have performance parameters, what limits do is make sure that there isn't too great a differential between them, where those of differing abilities have to interact. The greater the differential the greater the risk. And they aren't going to take all the less able (but nevertheless competent under our current standards) off the road to satisfy the desire to travel faster of those who consider themselves more skilled.
That's not only ignorant it's arrogant.
In my experience people tend also to have a greater opinion of their ability than their actual ability. Allowing free reign with that is a recipe for disaster.
As I've said many times, I don't have a problem with higher limits per se, I just believe that we need to train & test to higher standards than we currently do if we are to have them.
You can't expect barely adequate drivers who may only have adequate (within our current remit) judgement of speed & distance to suddenly have to deal with mcuh larger differentials. If those larger differentials are going to be present we need to be sure that those achieving the higher speeds are tested and competent to do so, in that they can handle the car safely at that speed, that their driving processes are sound & that they are observed to drive in a fashion that takes account of the weaker drivers legitimately on our roads, not merely possessing the bullish arrogant attitude that it is always someone else's fault, that is so often displayed by drivers on our roads.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 9th August 11:04
vonhosen said:
You can't expect barely adequate drivers who may only have adequate (within our current remit) judgement of speed & distance to suddenly have to deal with mcuh larger differentials. If those larger differentials are going to be present we need to be sure that those achieving the higher speeds are tested and competent to do so, in that they can handle the car safely at that speed, that their driving processes are sound & that they are observed to drive in a fashion that takes account of the weaker drivers legitimately on our roads, not merely possessing the bullish arrogant attitude that it is always someone else's fault, that is so often displayed by drivers on our roads.
Surely logic dictates all the above?
I don't want to die or kill someone, therefore I drive appropriately for the conditions to minimise or totally negate that potential. I take pride in my driving and try to better myself every day. Surely that should be a prerequisite for drivers? Pride in their driving, and taking it more seriously than A to B? If safety is paramount than surely attitude should be too?
If we let cretins on the road that is the fault of the testing system! If we let good drivers become bad drivers over time through poor policing spotting deteriorating standards, then that is a fault in policing. Or letting genuinely bad drivers onto the roads and their abilities are never checked either by trafpol or 10 year testing, then we have a big problem too.
I suppose we need to start to look at what the roads are for then.
If we are to suppose the worst drivers are the majority and work to their level, then I can see why speed limits need to be lower, but they won't *protect* the safety of anyone. They are just guides. Ignorant drivers will still be a huge danger to themselves for many other reasons than their speed.
The way I see it is there will never be truly safe roads until we make the drivers inherently safe. Making them go slowly only reduces the severity of their mishaps, but they will still make them!
Which is more acceptable? A few big accidents, or lots of smaller ones?
Dave
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff