Discussion
Hollywood Wheels said:
I think his threads are interesting. This would be a VERY boring site if we all just sat here at our computers agreeing with each other, VERY boring indeed. I certainly wouldn't bother, hence why i'm not interested in joining 'Police' websites or forums. I come here to see the other side to my arguments, and sometimes i will change my mind about things.
This thread should never have been posted and is quite insulting. I often look at your site Paul, and am interested by it. I've never felt the need to start slagging you off just because i don't agree with some of what you say.
Personally i think this post should be locked. Just my pennies worth....
HW
I've spent a great deal of time around internet newsgroups and forums. I'm met all sorts of people. Most of them are what they appear - but there are exceptions. Some post messages to promote conflict or meaningless discussion - they are the trolls.. And some create multiple identities when earlier identities are losing or have lost arguments - these identities are 'sock puppets'.
The entire reason that most of us are here is to engage in honest debate. But there are exceptions.
We don't get many new posters with experience in the debate. And when we suddenly get a prolific new poster with sophistication and sophistry we should rightly be suspicious. Gentlemen, your time is being stolen.
vonhosen said:
I promise you I am new to this forum (not the debate in question though) & have never posted here under another name. Infact I don't think I even read a post on here before this week.
Oh jolly good. Then email me your real name and phone number. It'd be interesting to have a chat with someone of such views. I promise to keep your personal details confidential. psmith@safespeed.org.uk
eccles said:
Vonhosen looks to me like a troll AND a sock puppet. I really don't know why you guys are bothering.
"seems fair but smells foul"
you accuse someone, but provide no backup or proof.......looks like the camera partnerships tactics are catching!
I regret starting this thread and I'd like to apologise to everyone, especially Vonhosen. It seems that I judged too quickly and got it wrong.
Anyway. Sorry everyone. Sorry Vonhosen.
vonhosen said:
I do however advocate that you should be obeying the limits & that it is not difficult do.
I don't disagree with that, but what use is should when most people don't?
Perhaps we should attach explosives to every car set to explode whne a speed limit is exceeded? That would cure 'speeding', but would it make the roads safer?
Assuming you agree that exploding cars are unreasonable, how far should we go in polcy based attempts to reduce or punish speeding? While completely ignoring inappropriate speed?
I say we have gone FAR too far already and this is the result:
Whatever way you look at it, something has gone SERIOUSLY wrong...
vonhosen said:
But it doesn't have to make them more dangerous either. There is no reason why they can't still remain totally safe at the lower limit.
Actually there are many reasons. The means of speed reduction is distracting. Concentration levels may be lower at the reduced speed. Belief systems might be altered (e.g. 'my speed is safe because I'm not exceeding the speed limit'; Oh look - we should be driving at 60 here'; etc etc). Confidence in the Police and offical safety messages might be affected. Good road safety policies might be replaced with bad ones.
vonhosen said:
An arbitrary limit is an arbitrary limit, whatever it's set at.
We have them or we don't & I know which is my preferred choice in that.
Nothing wrong with speed limits. But there's a great deal wrong with the means of enforcement, the side effects of enforcement and the importance attached to them presently. We need our safety factors to be balanced and correctly ranked. Drivers use these rankings to allocate attention properly. The speed limit should be WAY down the list.
You're always thinking about the effect on an individual. I'm always thinking about the effect on the system.
Road safety policy affects everyone - it alters behaviour and beliefs. And especiaaly so in the case of speed cameras because they are highly significant in the modern driving experience.
It's like a change in the interest rate. If the interest rate goes down, marginal businesses are saved. If the interest rate goes up marginal businesses are bankrupted. But the effect on the majority of individuals is insignificant.
Ah yes. So everyone will learn that the speed limit is the speed benchmark and greater excess means greater penalty. 35 mph past a school will be an equal offence at 4:00pm and 4:00am when conditions are entirely different. They expect us to drive AT the speed limit. It stopped being a limit and it has become a wholly illegitimate target. Graduated speeding penalties will just make it worse and send entirely the wrong message.
Training is good, yes.
YES! Correct approach speed to hazards is the holy grail of safe driving. One must perceive, understand and anticipate (the development of) the hazard and set an appropriate speed. So what proportion of hazards are correctly approached at 30mph? 1 in 1,000?
Road safety policy affects everyone - it alters behaviour and beliefs. And especiaaly so in the case of speed cameras because they are highly significant in the modern driving experience.
It's like a change in the interest rate. If the interest rate goes down, marginal businesses are saved. If the interest rate goes up marginal businesses are bankrupted. But the effect on the majority of individuals is insignificant.
vonhosen said:
Isn't that being addressed slightly in the Road Safety Bill ?
Slding scale for offences.
Ah yes. So everyone will learn that the speed limit is the speed benchmark and greater excess means greater penalty. 35 mph past a school will be an equal offence at 4:00pm and 4:00am when conditions are entirely different. They expect us to drive AT the speed limit. It stopped being a limit and it has become a wholly illegitimate target. Graduated speeding penalties will just make it worse and send entirely the wrong message.
vonhosen said:
The ability of the courts to offer training instead of fine & points in sentencing (rather than the Police just having the option to offer DIS in some areas where they wish)
Training is good, yes.
vonhosen said:
Correct approach speed to any hazard is VERY important & an upper limit is a means in helping to highlight to the driver the likelyhood of hazards in that area & speed moderation required.
YES! Correct approach speed to hazards is the holy grail of safe driving. One must perceive, understand and anticipate (the development of) the hazard and set an appropriate speed. So what proportion of hazards are correctly approached at 30mph? 1 in 1,000?
mg6b said:
...They expect us to drive AT the speed limit....
Completely and utterly WRONG!
They expect everyone to drive safely and appropriately WITHIN the speed limit.
No one states we have to drive AT the limit anywhere!
Nope. The correct theory is that everyone should drive at a safe and appropriate speed within the limit. But the mindset has moved far far beyond the theory. Even Dr Stephen Ladyman (who should know an awful lot better) said it in parliament recently.
Edited to add: And here it is:
www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060308/debtext/60308-31.htm#60308-31_spnew0
Dr. Ladyman: We have made it quite clear that people should know where the cameras are, and should be able to see them. We will change the way in which speed limits are indicated where enforcement takes place, so that people are clear about the speed at which they ought to be driving.
>> Edited by safespeed on Sunday 19th March 14:16
vonhosen said:
Dr. Ladyman: We have made it quite clear that people should know where the cameras are, and should be able to see them. We will change the way in which speed limits are indicated where enforcement takes place, so that people are clear about the speed at which they ought to be driving.
Are we in pedant mode ?
Hell, no. I wish I was.
vonhosen said:
Guilty of reading what we want into use of language rather than the intended meaning of the user ?
If the use of language confuses ask for clarification, don't just take it to be firm evidence of what your are looking for.
No. This is the practical reality of the obsession with numerical speed. Clearly you haven't noticed how far the rot has gone.
If Ladyman makes such a boob, what do you think is going on in the mind of ~15 million below average drivers?
vonhosen said:
What I do believe is right (& defend) is the requirement for a speed limit system & in order for that to have any value there needs to be some form of enforcement.
I agree completely. We just appear to differ about the form of enforcement and the side effects of that enforcement.
The most important single factor driving the enforcement should be safety. Clearly safety is not well served if enforcement fails to distinguish between safe and dangerous behaviours.
vonhosen said:
What I do believe is right (& defend) is the requirement for a speed limit system & in order for that to have any value there needs to be some form of enforcement.
I agree completely. We just appear to differ about the form of enforcement and the side effects of that enforcement.
The most important single factor driving the enforcement should be safety. Clearly safety is not well served if enforcement fails to distinguish between safe and dangerous behaviours.
s2 & s3 RTA 1988 deal with where speed is dangerous & we I think appreciate how difficult it is to bring prosecutions under these offences for speed alone.
The speeding legislation is written to be preventative. Offence complete before danger exists (when danger does being a very subjective test).
Preventative is good, but to work in the real world danger would have to be prevented.
Clearly that's what we would all like. But absolute speed expressed in mph does not EVER measure danger. Is 29mph safe? Is 70mph safe?
But the seemingly constant presence of speed cameras on our roads appears to imply that danger can be inferred from the speedometer. This ends up in the mind of the driver as a false safety message. And that's just one of the problems.
vonhosen said:
s2 & s3 RTA 1988 deal with where speed is dangerous & we I think appreciate how difficult it is to bring prosecutions under these offences for speed alone.
The speeding legislation is written to be preventative. Offence complete before danger exists (when danger does being a very subjective test).
Preventative is good, but to work in the real world danger would have to be prevented.
Clearly that's what we would all like. But absolute speed expressed in mph does not EVER measure danger. Is 29mph safe? Is 70mph safe?
But the seemingly constant presence of speed cameras on our roads appears to imply that danger can be inferred from the speedometer. This ends up in the mind of the driver as a false safety message. And that's just one of the problems.
I have never said that absolute speed expressed in mph is dangerous. Very high speeds are attainable & safe on some of our roads at certain times.
Sure. I know you didn't. But I REALLY want you to carefully consider the effects of camera enforcement on the average driver. They include:
1) The false belief that the speedometer reading has some direct bearing on safety. For example: "I wasn't going too fast, I was only doing 29mph."
2) The attention diverted from the road ahead to cameras, speedos and even the potential of cameras. Hell, I even find myself scanning distant motorway bridges looking for talivans - that's time lost from observing hazards.
vonhosen said:
I just believe that the untried & untested should not be allowed to explore or venture into those areas.
As far as rules and advice are concerned, I agree. Just so long as we don't get obsessed with the rules and forget the real safety issues.
Big Fat F'er said:
BFFer. You have got me thinking.
As a scientist, I would agree with you there is a difference between opinion and 'fact'. In this case, the facts are not readily available to me. I will have to go and search.
In the mean time, and no doubt you have seen it before, but perhaps you would you take another look at this.
www.safespeed.org.uk/why.html
I have seen it before, and it is very well presented. I don't agree with all of it, and I think that some of SafeSpeeds claims stretch credulity to the limits. This is only fair, as I'm sure SS thinks the same of me and others of our ilk. No problemo, as long as we can debate the difference without turning into little girls having an argument, which is what usually happens on here (I'm still laughing at the one that invited me to stand next to him and repeat what I had just said. Yeah right, is playtime over yet).
My worry is that the article (and others) suggests at first read that most drivers are generally good. Well all I can say in my experience is that they are not. Thats what most seem to miss. They say that a 30mph limit in a residential area is not required because they can judge speed safely, and they are 'good' drivers. Right, okay then, I'm not worried about them. I'm worried about all the others. The ones that don't concentrate, or think they are better than they are (always someone else, not us), or think they know best, etc., etc., etc.
You only have to look at the crash stats to know that most drivers are 'good enough'. I don't think they are 'good' either, and there's OODLES of room for improvement. But...
* 32 million drivers / 214,000 injury crashes per year (2004 figure) shows that the AVERAGE driver goes 150 years before he causes an injury crash. That's a lot of successful driving. That's 'good enough'.
* But the 'median driver is an awful lot better than the average driver. Consider this:
Having notionally ranked drivers by crash risk we find there's an awful lot of risk at the low end of the driver quality scale. Estimates include 60% of crashes caused by 10% of drivers and 80% of crashes caused by 20% of drivers. That probably means that the median driver goes 400 years before he causes an injury crash.
And if you want to look at excessive speed injury crashes - perhaps 1 in 8 (12%) then the median driver probably goes 3,200 years before he causes one. Yet he's 'speeding' every day...
7db said:
* But the 'median driver is an awful lot better than the average driver. Consider this:
Having notionally ranked drivers by crash risk we find there's an awful lot of risk at the low end of the driver quality scale.
In a thread twist about opinion vs fact, that diagram takes the biscuit. It's quite a smooth dataset you are representing there, Paul, or is it all made up?
It's completely made up, but it correctly illustrates axiomatic fact.
vonhosen said:
You only have to look at the crash stats to know that most drivers are 'good enough'. I don't think they are 'good' either, and there's OODLES of room for improvement. But...
* 32 million drivers / 214,000 injury crashes per year (2004 figure) shows that the AVERAGE driver goes 150 years before he causes an injury crash. That's a lot of successful driving. That's 'good enough'.
Don't forget the non injury collisions though. They are also indicative of poor practice. Just because they haven't resulted in an injury collision doesn't mean they aren't a valid marker of the defeciencies in drivers.
That's true, but damage onlys aren't an important target of a road safety policy.
And if you want to judge driver quality it's better still to shift one more stage down the severity scale and look at (for?) near misses. Or one stage more and look for errors.
vonhosen said:
You only have to look at the crash stats to know that most drivers are 'good enough'. I don't think they are 'good' either, and there's OODLES of room for improvement. But...
* 32 million drivers / 214,000 injury crashes per year (2004 figure) shows that the AVERAGE driver goes 150 years before he causes an injury crash. That's a lot of successful driving. That's 'good enough'.
Don't forget the non injury collisions though. They are also indicative of poor practice. Just because they haven't resulted in an injury collision doesn't mean they aren't a valid marker of the defeciencies in drivers.
That's true, but damage onlys aren't an important target of a road safety policy.
And if you want to judge driver quality it's better still to shift one more stage down the severity scale and look at (for?) near misses. Or one stage more and look for errors.
Is that not what I have been saying ?
There will be more near misses (others taking action to cater for the errors of others in order to avoid collisions) & safety process errors commited by drivers, than actual collisions. It is these that are a true indication of how safe a driver is, not the collisions. Many drivers commit these & because it results in no collision they see no error or wrong.
That's true - so we need policies that help drivers to learn from their mistakes.
vonhosen said:
Increased speed brings the incidence & the criticalness of the errors forward, particularly in relation to assessment of speed/distance & safe overtaking.
There are plenty of overtakes done on our roads that are not thought out & result in no collision simply by luck.
That's true and false. The road safety system is so large that every case of 'luck' is played out - so from a statistical point of view it's false. Instead there's a certain 'error tolerance' present in the road safety system.
From the point of view of an individual it is true - but luck runs out. We need drivers to recognise the near misses where luck nearly ran out and to learn from those.
vonhosen said:
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2094236,00.html
Of course. Road safety depends on getting the psychology right.
vonhosen said:
The numbers of tickets would naturally increase substantially, because the number of counties with SCPs increased substantially.
So you would expect a big drop in accident rates?
& we have had
Err, rubbish!
The ONLY good news is in 'serious' injuries and there's little or no evidence that this represents a real road safety improvement (as opposed to some sort of recording / reporting effect).
vonhosen said:
Err, rubbish!
The ONLY good news is in 'serious' injuries and there's little or no evidence that this represents a real road safety improvement (as opposed to some sort of recording / reporting effect).
I was of course talking about the reductions in KSI figures.
As I've eluded to before, I would expect the "slight" injuries would distort figures with the increase in ambulance chasing companies we have now.
And the gold standard? Fatalities? They are the most reliable and the most important figures.
And have you actually looked at the serious injury figures in the wider context? I have and I was shocked. See: www.safespeed.org.uk/serious.html
vonhosen said:
And the gold standard? Fatalities? They are the most reliable and the most important figures.
And have you actually looked at the serious injury figures in the wider context? I have and I was shocked. See: www.safespeed.org.uk/serious.html
Your graphs only go to 2002 at the moment of course not showing the healthy reductions up to the latest 2004 figures.
It takes ages to update these graphs every time a new figure comes along. But the later figures change NOTHING about the conclusions on that page. And yes, I do check.
vonhosen said:
To be fair though, there are a fair few "fears" & "Guesstimates" leading to you being shocked.
To be fair, though, you have ignored the important point about fatalities.
And to be fair, if you want to base your opinion on KSI, then I think you should explain in considerable detail exactly why you think that the serious injury trend is a reliable road safety indicator.
Don't you agree that serious injury stats are wide open to distortions resulting from a wide range of external influences?
edited to add: And I'll tell you why I'm shocked. Nothing to do with 'fears' or 'guesstimates'. I'm shocked because we're (national we're) supposedly measuring road safety with a yardstick of totally unknown and variable length.
>> Edited by safespeed on Wednesday 22 March 01:15
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff