"SAFESPEED" in the London Lite Today
Discussion
Mad Moggie said:
But over on safespeed's site.. I posted up each KSI reported in the Bolton paper over the past year. There were 14 in total - Only three were committed by legal drivers. These three happened to be novices and the accidents were more COAST error than "speeding" per the reports. the rest were unlicenced, unqualified, drunken and drug addicted "scum" for want of a better word to describe them
All highly dangerous ..with no respect for the road at all. We even had one who had been convicted and banned twice before for causing death by dangerous driving.. and he was seen by a police officer as he drove past the police station. The officer gave chase. People's cars were damaged as his mates hurled gas cylinders and step ladders at the pursuing police car. They legged it when he hit a tree... and he survived it. Good idea that Doc! So 11 out of 14 KSI were committed by illegal drivers! I wonder if that figure is roughly representative of National KSI's, or is Bolton a particularly rough area?
deeps said:
Mad Moggie said:
But over on safespeed's site.. I posted up each KSI reported in the Bolton paper over the past year. There were 14 in total - Only three were committed by legal drivers. These three happened to be novices and the accidents were more COAST error than "speeding" per the reports. the rest were unlicenced, unqualified, drunken and drug addicted "scum" for want of a better word to describe them
All highly dangerous ..with no respect for the road at all. We even had one who had been convicted and banned twice before for causing death by dangerous driving.. and he was seen by a police officer as he drove past the police station. The officer gave chase. People's cars were damaged as his mates hurled gas cylinders and step ladders at the pursuing police car. They legged it when he hit a tree... and he survived it. Good idea that Doc! So 11 out of 14 KSI were committed by illegal drivers! I wonder if that figure is roughly representative of National KSI's, or is Bolton a particularly rough area?
Did some of my clinical training at what is now the Royal Bolton. One of my sisters teaches at the Bolton School.
I would not say from reading Bolton's local press or chatting to my sister who works and does most of her shopping in this large market town that Bolton is any rougher than Penrith or Carlisle. It apparently has a couple of fairly "rough" estates - and if I read btween the lines of the press articles correctly .. this is where the local GMP - Bolton branch - seem to hunt first.
But ... nope .. I would not say on any visits down to the football stadium with my football mad sons who will watch any match with enthusiasm
or any visits to my relatives based down in that area .. that I have noted Bolton to be a rough town full of dangerous drivers. Most of these incidents occurred in the wee small hours as well.. Bolton recorded some shock figures in 2006 per their local press. Trend seemed to be higher K and slighly lower SI .. but this could be down to crumple zones and even what doctors might subjectively consider as "serious". If you totalled up and recorded all injuries ...then the stats would paint a rather different picture - more in line with the Oxford study
. Manchester press seems to record very similar events - but has more incidents with police vans and pedestrians than Bolton and Bury
spnracing said:
vonhosen said:
I have not said that I advocate prosecuting to tight margins, but what we have to get away from is the "I'm a good driver, I'm safe, I can judge what speed is appropriate & will drive to what I think is appropriate irresepective of the limit" attitude.
Agree 100%. Drivers choosing their own "Safespeed" is a recipe for disaster.
Yep. Paint windscreens black. Fit dirty great big speedometers. That'll make sure that all drivers concentrate on what's REALLY important.
spnracing said:
Agree 100%. Drivers choosing their own "Safespeed" is a recipe for disaster.
Unless of course, it's below the limit, in which case it's perfectly alright, right?
You can't have it both ways. Either it's safe for drivers to select their speed according to the conditions, or it isn't.
Your statement as written simply says "drive at the posted limit at all times in all conditions" which I certainly don't do - there are many circumstances in which I select a speed substantially lower than the posted limit, depending on the conditions. And yet at other times, I select a safe speed (can stop within distance I can see and reasonably expect to be clear, etc) that is above the number on the lolly.
What's the safer approach?
safespeed said:
spnracing said:
vonhosen said:
I have not said that I advocate prosecuting to tight margins, but what we have to get away from is the "I'm a good driver, I'm safe, I can judge what speed is appropriate & will drive to what I think is appropriate irresepective of the limit" attitude.
Agree 100%. Drivers choosing their own "Safespeed" is a recipe for disaster.
Yep. Paint windscreens black. Fit dirty great big speedometers. That'll make sure that all drivers concentrate on what's REALLY important.
That is patently not the answer & no-one is suggesting that it is.
It is not being suggested that speed compliance is the be all & end all, as I've said I am not talking about prosecuting for minor transgressions or small fluctuations.
I am suggesting that limits are a part of our driving culture, a necessary part & that people should be making every reasonable attempt to adhere to them. That adherance, if they are a decent driver, should not impinge on safety & if it does perhaps they are not fit to be driving on the road.
Only where people make no attempt to adhere to limits, or their speed is indicative that they are to a larger degree negligent in relation to that observation (ie transgressions by larger margins than previously mentioned) should prosecution for speeding be considered.
CommanderJameson said:
spnracing said:
Agree 100%. Drivers choosing their own "Safespeed" is a recipe for disaster.
Unless of course, it's below the limit, in which case it's perfectly alright, right?
You can't have it both ways. Either it's safe for drivers to select their speed according to the conditions, or it isn't.
Your statement as written simply says "drive at the posted limit at all times in all conditions" which I certainly don't do - there are many circumstances in which I select a speed substantially lower than the posted limit, depending on the conditions. And yet at other times, I select a safe speed (can stop within distance I can see and reasonably expect to be clear, etc) that is above the number on the lolly.
What's the safer approach?
That's not what is meant though is it ?
The limit is the imposition of an upper limit. It doesn't signify that the limit is a safe speed in all circumstances (infact rarely will the maximum safe speed achiveable be exactly the limit). It just defines the range that a careful competent driver is expected to be able to choose a safe speed between on that road (i.e. between 0 & 30mph).
You are licenced to only make that judgement between the defined parameters. Put yourself outside that & the licence may be withdrawn for a period.
You can have it both ways & we do.
The reason why is because the higher the speed the harder it gets, because mistakes are harder to cover for & the consequences of them potentially far greater. We are human after all & we all make mistakes in our driving. Speed limits are a 'level of risk' control measure in dealing with that fact.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 2nd February 07:22
vonhosen said:
CommanderJameson said:
spnracing said:
Agree 100%. Drivers choosing their own "Safespeed" is a recipe for disaster.
Unless of course, it's below the limit, in which case it's perfectly alright, right?
You can't have it both ways. Either it's safe for drivers to select their speed according to the conditions, or it isn't.
Your statement as written simply says "drive at the posted limit at all times in all conditions" which I certainly don't do - there are many circumstances in which I select a speed substantially lower than the posted limit, depending on the conditions. And yet at other times, I select a safe speed (can stop within distance I can see and reasonably expect to be clear, etc) that is above the number on the lolly.
What's the safer approach?
That's not what is meant though is it ?
It is precisely what was stated by spnracing, which is what I was taking issue with. What they meant, I don't know.
It is illuminating, however, that pretty much every time a previously restricted bit of motorway (Montana, for example) has its restrictions removed, that not only do average speeds go down, but so do accident rates.
Making drivers think makes them better drivers.
CommanderJameson said:
You can't have it both ways. Either it's safe for drivers to select their speed according to the conditions, or it isn't.
Its safe for drivers to select their own speed up to the posted limit in force.
Any driver who can't keep within the limit whilst driving safely is failing the meet the basic requirements of a licence holder in the UK.
CommanderJameson said:
Your statement as written simply says "drive at the posted limit at all times in all conditions"
Errr - no it doesn't? Where on earth did that come from?
With regard to the accident rates on de-restricted motorways, maybe someone can remind us how those of the derestricted German Autobahn compare to the UK motorway network?
spnracing said:
Its safe for drivers to select their own speed up to the posted limit in force.
It is very obviously potentially safe for drivers to select their own speed above the posted limit in force, it just isn't legal. If you seriously think that 0.000001mph below an arbitrary limit == safe and .0000001mph above a posted limit == dangerous then you are seriously hard of thinking.
Einion Yrth said:
VH, have you ever convinced any dissenting voice that you are correct WRT speed limits and their observation? If not, why do you continue, it just makes you look like a dogmatic legalist, and wastes bandwidth.
Yes & if it were dogmatic legalese I would be calling for people to be prosecuted for 31 in a 30, which I'm not.
spnracing said:
CommanderJameson said:
You can't have it both ways. Either it's safe for drivers to select their speed according to the conditions, or it isn't.
Its safe for drivers to select their own speed up to the posted limit in force.
And at 71MPH it becomes unsafe? At 30.5MPH? At 60.25MPH?
Nonsensical argument.
spnracing said:
[Any driver who can't keep within the limit whilst driving safely is failing the meet the basic requirements of a licence holder in the UK.
That's the letter of the law. The law is an arse.
spnracing said:
CommanderJameson said:
Your statement as written simply says "drive at the posted limit at all times in all conditions"
Errr - no it doesn't? Where on earth did that come from?
With regard to the accident rates on de-restricted motorways, maybe someone can remind us how those of the derestricted German Autobahn compare to the UK motorway network?
Shrug. I can select data, you can select data. What you can't do, of course, is rebut the fact that in Montana, derestriction caused average speeds and accident rates to fall. Ho hum.
spnracing said:
Drivers choosing their own "Safespeed" is a recipe for disaster.
You didn't say anything about "up to the posted limit in force". You simply said the words above, which are clear and unambiguous in meaning.
safespeed said:
Yep. Paint windscreens black. Fit dirty great big speedometers. That'll make sure that all drivers concentrate on what's REALLY important.
Are you proposing that drivers should be able to choose to drive at whatever speed they deem to be safe?
In a recent topic (www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?p=10&f=10&t=335836&h=0), you stated;
safespeed said:
I'm happy that 17 year old Kevin in his dodgy Nova is limited to 70mph by law.
Who would your "Safespeed" rule apply to?
Not Kevin, obviously.
spnracing said:
safespeed said:
Yep. Paint windscreens black. Fit dirty great big speedometers. That'll make sure that all drivers concentrate on what's REALLY important.
Are you proposing that drivers should be able to choose to drive at whatever speed they deem to be safe?
Eh? Drivers are so able.
spnracing said:
In a recent topic (www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?p=10&f=10&t=335836&h=0), you stated;
I'm happy that 17 year old Kevin in his dodgy Nova is limited to 70mph by law.
Who would your "Safespeed" rule apply to?
Not Kevin, obviously.
safespeed said:
I'm happy that 17 year old Kevin in his dodgy Nova is limited to 70mph by law.
Who would your "Safespeed" rule apply to?
Not Kevin, obviously.
The safe speed rule applies to all drivers at all times. Failing to observe it is dangerous.
spnracing said:
CommanderJameson said:
You can't have it both ways. Either it's safe for drivers to select their speed according to the conditions, or it isn't.
Its safe for drivers to select their own speed up to the posted limit in force.
Any driver who can't keep within the limit whilst driving safely is failing the meet the basic requirements of a licence holder in the UK.
CommanderJameson said:
Your statement as written simply says "drive at the posted limit at all times in all conditions"
Errr - no it doesn't? Where on earth did that come from?
With regard to the accident rates on de-restricted motorways, maybe someone can remind us how those of the derestricted German Autobahn compare to the UK motorway network?
Extremely well .. given the bulk of incidents on German networks occur in the East (limited to 81.25 mph und full of drivers used to Trabis
und Ladas 
und old style Skodas und the West has always been accident prone in the congested "heartland of the Pfalz und B-W. They restricted this in the early 80s after some American caused an incident. 
which involved some 20 vehicles But .. because ist congested und busy-busy like peak hour M25.. it has the incidents. The deristricteds are actually the safest as they are the clearest .. und like here... stats without the flesh behind them are really a bit meaningless
But ... we still do not know at what speed this person really had the incident as those who are angry, bitter und want vengeance .. will exagerrate. I doubt very much if this speed was calibrated to be at speed he claimed the driver hit his mother. I doubt if she was hit at that speed as the famous advert does say people do not survive hits at 40 mph let alone 45 mph... As I recall Liebchen .. you believe this advert as "gospel according to DfT" as well
spnracing said:
Agree 100%. Drivers choosing their own "Safespeed" is a recipe for disaster.
Err, doesn't every driver do this every moment of their drive?
I certainly choose the safe speed for my journey at all times, I'm not sure sure how often, it could be every couple of seconds, maybe more often, but not much less I'm sure.
Are you saying that in every situation a driver should judge their own "safespeed" by a number on a sign? If so you really should not be contributing to a discussion on road safety.
One way of half proving that the authorities think anything below the limit is safe are those stupid t
tty smiling faces speed reminders. The ones that give you a sad face if you are over the roads limit, but a happy face for anything under it. Surely, it should sad face you for anything under a certain limit too if it was really about road safety, going 20mph on a 50mph road shouldn't be greeted with a happy face as 1) you're pissing everyone else off, gonna cause a crash causing people to overtake/read end you or 2) sitting in traffic, in which case no one should be ing smiling about it. It's stupid things like this which annoy me, as it makes everyone think "oh, it's ok im going under the limit, im invincible"
tty smiling faces speed reminders. The ones that give you a sad face if you are over the roads limit, but a happy face for anything under it. Surely, it should sad face you for anything under a certain limit too if it was really about road safety, going 20mph on a 50mph road shouldn't be greeted with a happy face as 1) you're pissing everyone else off, gonna cause a crash causing people to overtake/read end you or 2) sitting in traffic, in which case no one should be ing smiling about it. It's stupid things like this which annoy me, as it makes everyone think "oh, it's ok im going under the limit, im invincible"vonhosen said:
safespeed said:
spnracing said:
vonhosen said:
I have not said that I advocate prosecuting to tight margins, but what we have to get away from is the "I'm a good driver, I'm safe, I can judge what speed is appropriate & will drive to what I think is appropriate irresepective of the limit" attitude.
Agree 100%. Drivers choosing their own "Safespeed" is a recipe for disaster.
Yep. Paint windscreens black. Fit dirty great big speedometers. That'll make sure that all drivers concentrate on what's REALLY important.
That is patently not the answer & no-one is suggesting that it is.
It is not being suggested that speed compliance is the be all & end all, as I've said I am not talking about prosecuting for minor transgressions or small fluctuations.
It's a continuum...
At the extreme left (0%) we have 100% driver attention on the road ahead...
At the extreme right (100%) we have an imaginary situation where 100% of driver attention is on the speedo...
In the real world we're probably sitting at about 4%, something like that. But cameras and oversimplified official messages are increasing the figure. I'm saying it's already far too high and getting worse. For an experienced and responsible driver 0.5% is probably the maximum desirable figure.
To put this in proper context, find me ANY experienced and responsible driver who won't be perfectly safe without a (working) speedo.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff