Set the pace - Make the commitment
Discussion
safespeed said:
Checking the speedo & awareness of your speed in relation to the limit is not a disturbance, it's a required skill of a reasonable competent driver as tested in your DSA test.
It may be legally required, but is it required for safety?
Could you drive a car perfectly safely if the speedo didn't work?
I could, but I prefer to know what speed I am doing, as it helps me in my plans & of course remain legal.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 25th March 23:58
vonhosen said:But it has no impact on your ability to drive safely.
Checking the speedo & awareness of your speed in relation to the limit is not a disturbance, it's a required skill of a reasonable competent driver as tested in your DSA test.
It may be legally required, but is it required for safety?
Could you drive a car perfectly safely if the speedo didn't work?
I could, but I prefer to know what speed I am doing, as it helps me in my plans & of course remain legal.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 25th March 23:58
said:
Checking the speedo & awareness of your speed in relation to the limit is not a disturbance, it's a required skill of a reasonable competent driver as tested in your DSA test.
It may be legally required, but is it required for safety?
Could you drive a car perfectly safely if the speedo didn't work?
I could, but I prefer to know what speed I am doing, as it helps me in my plans & of course remain legal.
Having no speedo wouldn't make me unsafe, but I believe I am a better more accurate driver with one, because of the information it gives me in building my driving plans.
vonhosen said:
Checking the speedo & awareness of your speed in relation to the limit is not a disturbance, it's a required skill of a reasonable competent driver as tested in your DSA test.
It may be legally required, but is it required for safety?
Could you drive a car perfectly safely if the speedo didn't work?
I could, but I prefer to know what speed I am doing, as it helps me in my plans & of course remain legal.
Having no speedo wouldn't make me unsafe, but I believe I am a better more accurate driver with one, because of the information it gives me in building my driving plans.
vonhosen said:
Checking the speedo & awareness of your speed in relation to the limit is not a disturbance, it's a required skill of a reasonable competent driver as tested in your DSA test.
It may be legally required, but is it required for safety?
Could you drive a car perfectly safely if the speedo didn't work?
I could, but I prefer to know what speed I am doing, as it helps me in my plans & of course remain legal.
I certainly 'don't mind' having one either - but you can see where we're getting to can't you...
* We don't need a speedo at all to drive safely - we mostly need one to drive legally.
* The modern high degree of emphasis on the speed limit and speedo is a DISTORTION of safety priorities for 34 million drivers - we know that it isn't even a necessary part of safe driving.
Every time we have a driver paying attention to the wrong safety factor there's an increase in risk...
safespeed said:
I certainly 'don't mind' having one either - but you can see where we're getting to can't you...
* We don't need a speedo at all to drive safely - we mostly need one to drive legally.
* The modern high degree of emphasis on the speed limit and speedo is a DISTORTION of safety priorities for 34 million drivers - we know that it isn't even a necessary part of safe driving.
Every time we have a driver paying attention to the wrong safety factor there's an increase in risk...
I have always said that speed is not dangerous in & of itself, that inappropriate speed is dangerous.
I have said that speed limits are an arbitrary limit & the limit displayed does not mean it is safe to travel at the limit. The circumstances do determine the safe speed, but you can only make that assessment up to & not beyond it.
I have also said that drivers are not suitably trained & equipped IMHO to be able, on mass, to determine what is a safe speed for the circumstances without limits. The speedo has nothing to do with that, it's an ability & safe practices thing. We need speed limits to control the upper speeds that people could potentially achieve on mass when not restricted by them & the greater differential speeds (increasing risk) that would also occur.
Speed limits are just a control (risk management) mechanism, to stop people being able to make those choices beyond a prescribed speed, because of the infallible truths that with greater speed safe performance is affected (different levels for different people I know, but we have a limit set to a common denominator), with greater speed there is inherent greater risk & with greater speed there is greater energy in any subsequent collision which results in greater damage/injury.
Also with the way our limits are set (around that common denominator) every competent driver should be able to drive within those limits & be able to ensure they remain within them by doing periodic checks of the speedo, without it adversely affecting their performance in relation to safety. In other words it's just one risk amongst many others that they are expected to be able to manage safely when driving. If they can't do that then they shouldn't be on the road, because they are clearly not capable enough.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 26th March 02:20
gridgway said:We were discussing overtakes before the more general exchanges on speedo glancing that have developed while I was out driving and overtaking, but it occurred to me at the wheel as I chose not to glance at the speedo that doing so would be less than useful for another reason, namely, during an overtake the needle is moving too quickly to give any meaningful safety information. Just how long are your t.e.d.'s?
I find the speedo strangely useful in many of my driving manoeuvres.
vonhosen said:
I certainly 'don't mind' having one either - but you can see where we're getting to can't you...
* We don't need a speedo at all to drive safely - we mostly need one to drive legally.
* The modern high degree of emphasis on the speed limit and speedo is a DISTORTION of safety priorities for 34 million drivers - we know that it isn't even a necessary part of safe driving.
Every time we have a driver paying attention to the wrong safety factor there's an increase in risk...
I have always said that speed is not dangerous in & of itself, that inappropriate speed is dangerous.
I have said that speed limits are an arbitrary limit & the limit displayed does not mean it is safe to travel at the limit. The circumstances do determine the safe speed, but you can only make that assessment up to & not beyond it.
I have also said that drivers are not suitably trained & equipped IMHO to be able, on mass, to determine what is a safe speed for the circumstances at speeds of their choice beyond our set limits. The speedo has nothing to do with that, it's an ability & safe practices thing. We need speed limits to control the upper speeds that people could potentially achieve on mass when not restricted by them & the greater differential speeds (increasing risk) that would also occur.
Speed limits are just a control mechanism to stop people being able to make those choices beyond a prescribed speed, because of the infallible truths that with greater speed safe performance is affected (different levels for different people I know, but we have a limit set to a common denominator), with greater speed there is inherent greater risk & with greater speed there is greater energy in any subsequent collision which results in greater damage/injury.
Also with the way our limits are set (around that common denominator) every competent driver should be able to drive within those limits & be able to ensure they remain within them by doing periodic checks of the speedo, without it adversely affecting their performance in relation to safety. In other words it's just one risk amongst many others that they are expected to be able to manage safely when driving. If they can't do that then they shouldn't be on the road, because they are clearly not capable enough.
I don't know von, you're driving me (us?) mad.
Perhaps it would help if I pointed out that 'speed' is not one thing for a driver...
From: www.safespeed.org.uk/againstcameras.html
The sort of speed that delivers safety on the roads is not the same sort of speed that we seek to measure in miles per hour. An assumption that these sorts of speed are similar is the most fundamental flaw underlying the entire concept of improving road safety with speed cameras.
We define these sorts of speed as follows:
Appropriate speed is a speed chosen by a driver as safe and appropriate for the immediate circumstances. We say that a driver uses “safe speed behaviour” as a mental process that enables him to set such appropriate speeds by reference to circumstances and the rule that he “should always be able to stop within the distance that he knows to be clear”. Failure to observe this rule always creates immediate danger.
Numerical speed is specified by speed limits and measured by speedometers. In most practical circumstances numerical speed cannot tell us anything at all about the degree of danger. Most of our towns are covered by a 30 mph speed limit, yet 30 mph is a deadly speed. If a driver chose to set his speed at 30 mph regardless of hazards ahead he would not last a day before he had an accident.
Our modern road safety system, with a high degree of emphasis on numerical speed, is sending some very dangerous messages indeed to road users everywhere. It says:
* “If you are not exceeding the speed limit, your speed is safe.”
* “Your primary duty to road safety is to keep to the speed limits.”
It is obvious to us that the high degree of emphasis on numerical speed sends false and misleading messages to road users, and that false messages will make road users less able and less effective at avoiding accidents.
More recently I've taken to thinking (also) that numerical speed is absolute, while appropriate speed is relative (to conditions etc). Numerical speed tells us NOTHING about safety...
safespeed said:
Numerical speed tells us NOTHING about safety...
Pointing it out won't help, because I am aware of that already.
I'm not saying that any given numerical speed does, just that our drivers are not trained to the levels required to make decisions on "relative" safe speeds without restriction. We need upper limits being imposed to restrict them because for every single one of us, there comes a point where we reach our maximum & people do go beyond that. If we have limits, that acts as a brake stopping them getting there. They only have to worry about judging that appropriateness up to our current limits, which they are licensed as safe to do. That is until they display they can no longer manage it.
Your primary duty is to be safe (whilst observing the limits) & being at any given speed (at or even under the limit) is no guarantee that it is safe without referrence to the prevailing circumstances. That is what everyone is taught.
Some just forget it.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 26th March 02:36
vonhosen said:
Numerical speed tells us NOTHING about safety...
Pointing it out won't help, because I am aware of that already.
I'm not saying that any given numerical speed does, just that our drivers are not trained to the levels required to make decisions on "relative" safe speeds without restriction. We need upper limits being imposed to restrict them because for every single one of us, there comes a point where we reach our maximum & people do go beyond that. If we have limits, that acts as a brake stopping them getting there. They only have to worry about judging that appropriateness up to our current limits, which they are licensed as safe to do. That is until they display they can no longer manage it.
But what's the good of that if numerical speed tells us nothing about safety?
Cameras are forcing drivers to conform to a FALSE safety standard. The effort they are expending to do so would be better spent on the real safety standards (observation, judgement, appropriate speed and so on).
Tell me, how do you think that drivers manage to survive on thousands and thousands of miles of coutry lanes with a 60mph speed limit, but where anything over about 40mph would be reckless?
safespeed said:
Numerical speed tells us NOTHING about safety...
Pointing it out won't help, because I am aware of that already.
I'm not saying that any given numerical speed does, just that our drivers are not trained to the levels required to make decisions on "relative" safe speeds without restriction. We need upper limits being imposed to restrict them because for every single one of us, there comes a point where we reach our maximum & people do go beyond that. If we have limits, that acts as a brake stopping them getting there. They only have to worry about judging that appropriateness up to our current limits, which they are licensed as safe to do. That is until they display they can no longer manage it.
But what's the good of that if numerical speed tells us nothing about safety?
Cameras are forcing drivers to conform to a FALSE safety standard. The effort they are expending to do so would be better spent on the real safety standards (observation, judgement, appropriate speed and so on).
Tell me, how do you think that drivers manage to survive on thousands and thousands of miles of coutry lanes with a 60mph speed limit, but where anything over about 40mph would be reckless?
They are operating at speeds they can manage safely & they are licensed to do. It's within their scope & ability. It's where they can physically achieve very high speeds on some roads, that they will be going far in excess of our current limits & often their abilities. I don't personally want that to be allowed. I only want people who are properly trained & tested to ever be allowed to do that.
Whilst operating at the current limits set, if they are reasonably competent (as they should be) the speedo checks & adherence to the limit should not affect their ability to remain both safe & legal. The limits aren't so much a safety standard, they are a cap to prevent increased risk.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 26th March 03:09
vonhosen said:
Tell me, how do you think that drivers manage to survive on thousands and thousands of miles of coutry lanes with a 60mph speed limit, but where anything over about 40mph would be reckless?
They are operating at speeds they can manage safely & they are licensed to do. It's within their scope & ability. It's where they can phyisically achieve very high speeds on some roads, that they will be going far in excess of our current limits & often their abilities. I don't personally want that to be allowed. I only want people who are properly trained & tested to ever be allowed to do that.
Whilst operating at the current limits set, if they are reasonably competent (as they should be) the speedo checks & adherence to the limit should not affect their ability to remain both safe & legal. The limits aren't so much a safety standard, they are a cap to prevent increased risk.
OK. Let's try a totally different tack.
Did the speed limits serve us better or worse in (say) the 1980s than they do now?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff