Set the pace - Make the commitment
Discussion
GreenV8S said:
Speed cameras don't make an unsafe driver any safer though.
No, they make all drivers less safe.
No more so than other hazards on the roads. Either the drivers are good enough to cope, or they aren't.
If they aren't, then I'd suggest they are hardly the ones that should be driving at speeds higher than the limit.
7db said:
Speed cameras don't make an unsafe driver any safer though.
No, they make all drivers less safe.
No more so than other hazards on the roads. Either the drivers are good enough to cope, or they aren't.
If they aren't, then I'd suggest they are hardly the ones that should be driving at speeds higher than the limit.
This has been done to death. Experience tells me that an awful lot of drivers brake instinctively when the see a camera, speeding or not.
Adding this to all the other hazards means we are all less safe, not to mention the priority people give to cameras and speedo watching rather than road hazards.
deeps said:
I wonder how different things would be today if man had never developed a way of measuring speed?
Sadly, it's all happening the opposite way. More and more importance is being given to mere numbers, with a whole industry built around it, and Von talks of common sense?
The speedo in my Stag oscilates. Most stags behave this way, and until recently it has not been a problem. Certainly a pinpoint accurate speedo was not a critical design feature for cars of that era. For heaven's sake, why would a driver ever need to know exactly what speed they are doing?
Well it is a different world now. I have to drive at 25mph (probably) on certain dual carriageways around here, just to be sure.
s2art said:
This has been done to death. Experience tells me that an awful lot of drivers brake instinctively when the see a camera, speeding or not.
Good ones don't (because a good driver will take in the information (warnings of camera area) & act on it), poor ones shouldn't be travelling at speeds where they need to brake for them anyway.
s2art said:
Adding this to all the other hazards means we are all less safe, not to mention the priority people give to cameras and speedo watching rather than road hazards.
Speak for yourself.
Speedo checks shouldn't impact on safety at all, because you prioritise when to do them.
If circumstances are favourable, so that you can be travelling at the limit, then you obviously have no immeadiate threat for that speed & periodic checks are not a problem.
If there is a threat that prevents you travelling at the limit, you should be going slower & be aware you are well under the limit, hence the speedo check will be not required until it is safe for you to approach the speed of the maximum again.
vonhosen said:
This has been done to death. Experience tells me that an awful lot of drivers brake instinctively when the see a camera, speeding or not.
Good ones don't (because a good driver will take in the information (warnings of camera area) & act on it), poor ones shouldn't be travelling at speeds where they need to brake for them anyway.
s2art said:
Adding this to all the other hazards means we are all less safe, not to mention the priority people give to cameras and speedo watching rather than road hazards.
Speak for yourself.
Speedo checks shouldn't impact on safety at all, because you prioritise when to do them.
If circumstances are favourable, so that you can be travelling at the limit, then you obviously have no immeadiate threat for that speed & periodic checks are not a problem.
If there is a threat that prevents you travelling at the limit, you should be going slower & be aware you are well under the limit, hence the speedo check will be not required until it is safe for you to approach the speed of the maximum again.
I wasnt talking about good drivers particularly, although there will be a few who are good but still brake instinctively as they have many points and are oversensitive. The point is, in the real world, cameras cause braking and divert the motorists attention from the road.
You are not taking into consideration the real impact on normal drivers. Its not much use saying a good driver wouldnt be distracted, in reality they are.
I consider myself a reasonably good driver, however I cant help myself continously checking my speedo when passing a camera. Consider it a nervous affliction.
vonhosen said:
Speedo checks shouldn't impact on safety at all, because you prioritise when to do them.
If circumstances are favourable, so that you can be travelling at the limit, then you obviously have no immeadiate threat for that speed & periodic checks are not a problem.
If there is a threat that prevents you travelling at the limit, you should be going slower & be aware you are well under the limit, hence the speedo check will be not required until it is safe for you to approach the speed of the maximum again.
There you go again. What drivers SHOULD do. It matters not what drivers should do. It matters what drivers do do.
So. Meanwhile, back in the real world, we have a national shortage of driver attention as evidenced by crashes involving inattention. Some estimates put inattention as the root cause of 75% of all crashes.
Yes, a good driver / ideal driver / perfect driver will always find the time to check his speedo when hazards don't threaten. Yet in the real world there are no perfect drivers and few good ones.
It follows that sometimes imperfect drivers will be checking their speedos while critical hazards are developing around them. Question is: do we want more of this behaviour or not?
We're ALREADY on the slope of an inattention / crashes curve. More inattention means more crashes. Less inattention means fewer crashes. We're ALWAYS going to be on the slope.
>> Edited by safespeed on Wednesday 12th April 17:49
safespeed said:
Speedo checks shouldn't impact on safety at all, because you prioritise when to do them.
If circumstances are favourable, so that you can be travelling at the limit, then you obviously have no immeadiate threat for that speed & periodic checks are not a problem.
If there is a threat that prevents you travelling at the limit, you should be going slower & be aware you are well under the limit, hence the speedo check will be not required until it is safe for you to approach the speed of the maximum again.
There you go again. What drivers SHOULD do. It matters not what drivers should do. It matters what drivers do do.
So. Meanwhile, back in the real world, we have a national shortage of driver attention as evidenced by crashes involving inattention. Some estimates put inattention as the root cause of 75% of all crashes.
Yes, a good driver / ideal driver / perfect driver will always find the time to check his speedo when hazards don't threaten. Yet in the real world there are no perfect drivers and few good ones.
It follows that sometimes imperfect drivers will be checking their speedos while critical hazards are developing around them. Question is: do we want more of this behaviour or not?
We're ALREADY on the slope of an inattention / crashes curve. More inattention means more crashes. Less inattention means fewer crashes. We're ALWAYS going to be on the slope.
If we want to worry about things that have an adverse effect on concentration of drivers, we would be better dealing with eating at the wheel, phone conversations (hands free or not), remove car stereos, stop people reading maps on the move & even not allowing passengers so they don't have distracting conversations. All of these have little to do with the act of safe driving & affect concentration on the task in hand.
If they are looking out of their vehicles for cameras, at least they are looking out of their cars at the road ahead, not looking at the person next to them chatting.
850 posts later VH, have you come to any conclusions yet? has PH been informative or do you think we are all a load of impatient, selfish and poor drivers? do you think we care about road safety?
7DB do you have any preconceptions of drivers because of what you read here, do many BiB share your views?
7DB do you have any preconceptions of drivers because of what you read here, do many BiB share your views?
vonhosen said:
Speedo checks shouldn't impact on safety at all, because you prioritise when to do them.
If circumstances are favourable, so that you can be travelling at the limit, then you obviously have no immeadiate threat for that speed & periodic checks are not a problem.
If there is a threat that prevents you travelling at the limit, you should be going slower & be aware you are well under the limit, hence the speedo check will be not required until it is safe for you to approach the speed of the maximum again.
There you go again. What drivers SHOULD do. It matters not what drivers should do. It matters what drivers do do.
So. Meanwhile, back in the real world, we have a national shortage of driver attention as evidenced by crashes involving inattention. Some estimates put inattention as the root cause of 75% of all crashes.
Yes, a good driver / ideal driver / perfect driver will always find the time to check his speedo when hazards don't threaten. Yet in the real world there are no perfect drivers and few good ones.
It follows that sometimes imperfect drivers will be checking their speedos while critical hazards are developing around them. Question is: do we want more of this behaviour or not?
We're ALREADY on the slope of an inattention / crashes curve. More inattention means more crashes. Less inattention means fewer crashes. We're ALWAYS going to be on the slope.
If we want to worry about things that have an adverse effect on concentration of drivers, we would be better dealing with eating at the wheel, phone conversations (hands free or not), remove car stereos, stop people reading maps on the move & even not allowing passengers so they don't have distracting conversations. All of these have little to do with the act of safe driving & affect concentration on the task in hand.
If they are looking out of their vehicles for cameras, at least they are looking out of their cars at the road ahead, not looking at the person next to them chatting.
And cameras add to all of the above, and are potentially more distracting than holding a (light) conversation with a passenger simply because I can keep my eyes on the road at all times. Its a question of driver priorities really, I know I assign too high a priority to camera and speedo watching, but it dificult not to.
vonhosen said:
Speedo checks shouldn't impact on safety at all, because you prioritise when to do them.
If circumstances are favourable, so that you can be travelling at the limit, then you obviously have no immeadiate threat for that speed & periodic checks are not a problem.
If there is a threat that prevents you travelling at the limit, you should be going slower & be aware you are well under the limit, hence the speedo check will be not required until it is safe for you to approach the speed of the maximum again.
There you go again. What drivers SHOULD do. It matters not what drivers should do. It matters what drivers do do.
So. Meanwhile, back in the real world, we have a national shortage of driver attention as evidenced by crashes involving inattention. Some estimates put inattention as the root cause of 75% of all crashes.
Yes, a good driver / ideal driver / perfect driver will always find the time to check his speedo when hazards don't threaten. Yet in the real world there are no perfect drivers and few good ones.
It follows that sometimes imperfect drivers will be checking their speedos while critical hazards are developing around them. Question is: do we want more of this behaviour or not?
We're ALREADY on the slope of an inattention / crashes curve. More inattention means more crashes. Less inattention means fewer crashes. We're ALWAYS going to be on the slope.
If we want to worry about things that have an adverse effect on concentration of drivers, we would be better dealing with eating at the wheel, phone conversations (hands free or not), remove car stereos, stop people reading maps on the move & even not allowing passengers so they don't have distracting conversations. All of these have little to do with the act of safe driving & affect concentration on the task in hand.
Actually it doesn't matter very much what drivers do with their hands and feet. What really matters is what they do with their eyes and their brain. And of course especially the attitude that they bring to the task. Sometimes the hands might serve as an attitude indicator. Sometimes we might give drivers very narrow goals in order to help them with attitude and mental discipline. (That's a big part of your job, I reckon.)
But this is all by the by. We're talking about the effects of a supposed safety intervention. Obviously speed cameras come with negative side effects. I'm 100% certain that the side effects outwiegh the benefits by a large margin. The side effects strike at core values of safe driving like skills development, attitude and attention.
If an intervention makes matters worse, then we stop treatment. We don't double the dose.
vonhosen said:
If they are looking out of their vehicles for cameras, at least they are looking out of their cars at the road ahead, not looking at the person next to them chatting.
I take it that you are well aware of the realities and limitations of human vision? Looking in the wrong direction is little better than not looking at all. The high resolution portion of our vision is but a tiny proportion of the visual field, and the larger part of the visual field is pretty crap. We're amazingly good at scanning around, but every time we add something to our visual scan, something else gets lower priority.
apache said:
7DB do you have any preconceptions of drivers because of what you read here, do many BiB share your views?
I'm not sure I understand your question. My views on drivers are based on what I see on the roads. I'm not sure I'd form a view on any individual driver's / poster's driving ability without sitting in the left seat for a while, and then only if invited.
I don't think that the views here represent the views of most drivers on the roads (simply because most drivers on the roads don't think about this stuff at all) but probably quite accurately a certain subset of drivers. I think it's quite a seductive way of thinking.
The debate is interesting for me, because it develops my thinking and views, which ultimately improves my driving.
You'd have to ask the BiB if they share my views.
7db said:
7DB do you have any preconceptions of drivers because of what you read here, do many BiB share your views?
I'm not sure I understand your question. My views on drivers are based on what I see on the roads. I'm not sure I'd form a view on any individual driver's / poster's driving ability without sitting in the left seat for a while, and then only if invited.
I don't think that the views here represent the views of most drivers on the roads (simply because most drivers on the roads don't think about this stuff at all) but probably quite accurately a certain subset of drivers. I think it's quite a seductive way of thinking.
The debate is interesting for me, because it develops my thinking and views, which ultimately improves my driving.
You'd have to ask the BiB if they share my views.
I thought you were BiB, sorry
deeps said:
I wonder how different things would be today if man had never developed a way of measuring speed?
Your driving would have to be judged on it's merits alone, simply comparing it to a number would never have existed. No cameras or Speed Camera Partnerships would exist.
Yes indeed - what we really need is a safeto-meter, but that's too hard to design and safety too hard to measure, so speed is measured instead and used as a proxy for safety - which it isn't. Safety is quite an abstract term and is often just an impression, but perhaps could be defined as the probability of something bad happening through doing a particular activity. Playing Russian Roulette is completely safe, provided the gun doesn't go bang. Driving a car is comepletely safe, provided you don't crash. All we are talking about is a difference in probability. Both activities can get you killed, so are in that sense also highly dangerous, but the probability of the latter is low enough that most people are happy to do it and consider it safe, but more importantly, they can manage that probablity (safety) with the *manner* in which they drive much more than the *speed* at which they drive.
So, with our newly installed safeto-meter we are driving at 70mph along a clear motorway. We decide to increase our speed to 85mph. The speedo-meter has gone up by about 21%, but the safeto-meter has barely moved as the increase in speed alone has had only a tiny effect on the crash probability. However, the government approved roadside safety device would be flashing up 3 points. Returning to 70mph, we now proceed to drive like an ar$e, weaving between the now busy traffic as it starts to rain. Our safeto-meter is now on it's end-stop but the approved roadside safey device doesn't even register.
Another section of road, an A-road with junction over a blind crest. Safeto-meter begins to drop rapidly here as crash probability increases. Here speed infuences the safeto-meter more - aha at last maybe some correlation between our device and the governments. Well maybe, but the governments reponse to the reduction in safety here is to put a speed measuring device in box on a pole. Momentarily our safeto-meter drops even further as driver looks at speedo-meter to check speed then wonder why the camera may be there. A much greater and more effective increase in the safety would surely have been to place a large red sign saying "DANGER HIDDEN JUNCTION" which the driver can read while still looking where he is going and now adjust speed and prepare for and anticipate that particular danger before he gets there.
A reduction in speed will reduce the probability of a serious injury once the crash has actually started to occur, although I'd guess the probabilty of a serious injury being sustained while crashing a car is very high even at speeds way lower than those recommended we travel on A-roads. However, this just means that the campaign against speed is a campaign against the consequences of crashing, rather than against crashing itself. Using the russian roulette analagy - we are being enforced to use smaller guns, or perhaps softer bullets. A campaign that reduces the number of bullets would surely be more effective.
I think that speedometers should be banned from cars.
If its good enough for Formula 1, Its good enough for me.
I have now been driving with a non functioning speedo for a few months , not by choice, it is an electrical fault that i have not fixed. (Ok, by choice)
Most of my journeys are around Milton keynes and the country roads between MK and aylesbury. There is not one speed camera on my journey so i drive in a manner that will get me to work with a smile on my face,if traffic allows.
Its not about speed though, its about the feeling of speed. you can go down a road in a Cadillac at 60mph and be falling asleep. Go down the same road in a mini at that speed and you are alert as can be!
This actually worries me cos my my old jag will be on the road next week and i am used to flying down those twisty roads in an underpowered FWD, i will have to take it easy or i will find myself in a field!
If its good enough for Formula 1, Its good enough for me.
I have now been driving with a non functioning speedo for a few months , not by choice, it is an electrical fault that i have not fixed. (Ok, by choice)
Most of my journeys are around Milton keynes and the country roads between MK and aylesbury. There is not one speed camera on my journey so i drive in a manner that will get me to work with a smile on my face,if traffic allows.
Its not about speed though, its about the feeling of speed. you can go down a road in a Cadillac at 60mph and be falling asleep. Go down the same road in a mini at that speed and you are alert as can be!
This actually worries me cos my my old jag will be on the road next week and i am used to flying down those twisty roads in an underpowered FWD, i will have to take it easy or i will find myself in a field!
vonhosen said:
Actually it doesn't matter very much what drivers do with their hands and feet.
Really
Good operation of vehicle controls not an important part of driving then ?
Compared with observation, concentration and attitude? That's right - it's almost irrelevant.
What good is holding the wheel nicely if your eyes are tight shut?
Quite a few of the things you teach are valuable proxies for discipline and attitude.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff