Have you driven at 70 on the motorway recently????

[alexf]

safespeed said:

destroyer said: ylee coyote said: all the time (nine points) you do get used to it but the most dangerous thing is ,..... its boring it puts you to sleep and you crash... Not that old rubbish! Just a myth put around by the anti-cam bods. No proof whatsoever. I spoke to our leading scientist involved in sleep and road safety. (Professor Horne) He told me that there are "hundreds" of papers regarding the relationship between concentration and work rate. Broadly if work rate is too low we don't concentrate well. If work rate is too high we can't keep up. Every driver knows that there's a relationship between speed and work rate.

It doesn't take a driver and this is not merely a subjective opinion - it is a fact that at higher speeds we are processing information and reacting to that input more rapidly.

safespeed said:

Professor Horne also said that there was no research into any resultant relationship between speed and sleepiness or loss of concentration.

It would be nice if we could get some done, for the sake of the pedants and selective thinkers out there.

safespeed said:

I carried out a survey of Safe Speed visitors and 45 out of 48 respondents (94%) reported that their concentration would be affected by low speeds.

This last paragraph seems a little out of place, Paul. Please don't give ammunition to the pro-camera lobby by collecting and using statistics in a manner below your usual (excellent) standards.

safespeed said:

See: www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=117 (I did get an email reply from Professor Horne, and I published it. Next thing I know he's on the phone asking me to remove it because he's employed by the Government!)

Sad.

safespeed said:

Myth? I should coco.

Agreed.

[IOLAIRE]

destroyer said:

safespeed said: destroyer said: ylee coyote said: all the time (nine points) you do get used to it but the most dangerous thing is ,..... its boring it puts you to sleep and you crash... Not that old rubbish! Just a myth put around by the anti-cam bods. No proof whatsoever. I spoke to our leading scientist involved in sleep and road safety. (Professor Horne) He told me that there are "hundreds" of papers regarding the relationship between concentration and work rate. Broadly if work rate is too low we don't concentrate well. If work rate is too high we can't keep up. Every driver knows that there's a relationship between speed and work rate. Professor Horne also said that there was no research into any resultant relationship between speed and sleepiness or loss of concentration. I carried out a survey of Safe Speed visitors and 45 out of 48 respondents (94%) reported that their concentration would be affected by low speeds. See: <a href="http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=117">www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=117</a> (I did get an email reply from Professor Horne, and I published it. Next thing I know he's on the phone asking me to remove it because he's employed by the Government!) Myth? I should coco. So the Professor says no, you and your anti-camera mates say yes. I have seen you bleat on about misuse of statistics and figures but to claim a 94% figure for a driver concentration/speed correlation with 48 ever so slightly biased respondents typifies your preconceived b****cks "research". I was trying to be kind, honest, but this is well deserved derision. I'm writing to the Sun, I think that's where you and it will be appreciated!

Strange, I've never once heard Paul Smith bleat, that would imply he was a sheep, y'know like these people that keep writing to the Sun and trash like that.
He speeks with a coherent, educated, informed and above all, courteous voice that represents reason and common sense. You would do well to listen and learn.

[safespeed]

alexf said:

safespeed said: I carried out a survey of Safe Speed visitors and 45 out of 48 respondents (94%) reported that their concentration would be affected by low speeds. This last paragraph seems a little out of place, Paul. Please don't give ammunition to the pro-camera lobby by collecting and using statistics in a manner below your usual (excellent) standards.

Does it? I don't see why. You might think that Safe Speed would attract selective positive opinions, but then it could equally well attract detractors and sceptics. I'm tempted to believe that it attracts interested parties from both sides of the debate in reasonable proportion to the population.

Anyway I gave the reference and set out the terms. The fact is that no better information is available. Of course it isn't independent and of course it isn't proper science. But if it's the best we have then why not use it?

If anyone has anything better I'm all ears.

[900T-R]

I do a 150 mile round trip commute each day through the part of the Netherlands with the very highest traffic density, and I humbly submit that in flowing rush hour traffic it's far more relaxing and safe to go with the overtaking lane flow (which is usually 80-90 mph), than having to continually pull in and out of lanes just so you don't have to exceed the 75 mph speed limit. Rather than having to cram myself inbetween eighteen wheelers that have a barely sufficient safety distance between them already without me interfering, to let the vast majority of passenger car traffic pass by, I adapt to the speed on the outer lane and pass the whole bally lot of them. I'm not in the way of anyone, others are seldom in my way. I would define that as safe driving. I accept the odd speeding ticket as a commuting tax, because I value my safety and nerves higher.

On longer trips I find maintaining a decent pace is instrumental in keeping concentrated, and somehow it feels more 'natural' for observation going somewhat faster than the average traffic speed in lightly-to-moderately trafficked conditions than having to spend more attention to the rear view mirror versus what's in front of me. It allows me largely to position my vehicle on the road where I want it to be in relation to other traffic, instead of having to be purely reactive to other drivers' moves - which tends to get on my nerves and provokes the odd mistake. It's far better to be an actor than a passenger
I think the outcome of road surveys that drivers travelling at the 85th percentile speed on a certain stretch of road have the least accidents is about right.

[gone]

safespeed said:

Anyway I gave the reference and set out the terms. The fact is that no better information is available. Of course it isn't independent and of course it isn't proper science. But if it's the best we have then why not use it? If anyone has anything better I'm all ears.

Correct me if am wrong Paul, but I imagine that a lot of your work is followed and supported by those that want to be able to drive faster than the current laws allow. I would also think that there are a few but not many insurgents from the anti-speed lobby who peruse your journals.

If you have a vast following of believers, they will of course answer a simple question in favour of their objective.

From experience, driving faster does require greater concentration being applied. It also has the by product of producing fatigue much earlier than not having to concentrate for that degree.

What is better then?
1. Someone who is concentrating hard for a time when they then start to tire without realising without reducingh their greater speed

2. Someone who is travelling at a lesser speed and who is not so fatigued becasue of the greater effort used than the faster one.

In my opinion and experience from teaching advanced techniques, neither is desirable.
Concentration should be paramount whether travelling at 30mph or 100mph. Unfortunately with the amount of available distractions in modern cars and those which are unavoidable, there is little hope of improving this whithout major re-education of everyone who gets behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.

[IOLAIRE]

gone said:

safespeed said: Anyway I gave the reference and set out the terms. The fact is that no better information is available. Of course it isn't independent and of course it isn't proper science. But if it's the best we have then why not use it? If anyone has anything better I'm all ears. Unfortunately with the amount of available distractions in modern cars and those which are unavoidable, there is little hope of improving this whithout major re-education of everyone who gets behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.

Gone, your last paragraph is absolutely spot on, and one of these unavoidable distractions is speed cameras, another is the constant need to spend far too much time watching the speedometer, something that, as an advanced police driver, neither you nor your students have virtually any need to do. In fact you are teaching them to drive as quickly but as safely as possible.
That is the key; read my post SPEED KILLS SLOWLY. The whole problem there is the absolutely outrageous standard of driving. We HAVE to re-educate people and raise the standards or we'll keep on killing each other. Just imagine if everyone had completed the Class 1 HGV course, the motorcycle course and the Police Advanced Drivers course; what do you think would happen to the accident rate? It would virtually disappear; it's education and understanding that changes and improves things, not brutal, mindless enforcement.

[safespeed]

gone said:

safespeed said: Anyway I gave the reference and set out the terms. The fact is that no better information is available. Of course it isn't independent and of course it isn't proper science. But if it's the best we have then why not use it? If anyone has anything better I'm all ears. Correct me if am wrong Paul, but I imagine that a lot of your work is followed and supported by those that want to be able to drive faster than the current laws allow. I would also think that there are a few but not many insurgents from the anti-speed lobby who peruse your journals.

You know I've seen very little evidence of this. You probably know that I don't campaign against speed limits or speed limit enforcement - instead I campaign for better road safety policy. I don't seem to attract the reckless boy racer type you appear to be imagining.

gone said:

If you have a vast following of believers, they will of course answer a simple question in favour of their objective. From experience, driving faster does require greater concentration being applied. It also has the by product of producing fatigue much earlier than not having to concentrate for that degree. What is better then? 1. Someone who is concentrating hard for a time when they then start to tire without realising without reducingh their greater speed 2. Someone who is travelling at a lesser speed and who is not so fatigued becasue of the greater effort used than the faster one. In my opinion and experience from teaching advanced techniques, neither is desirable. Concentration should be paramount whether travelling at 30mph or 100mph. Unfortunately with the amount of available distractions in modern cars and those which are unavoidable, there is little hope of improving this whithout major re-education of everyone who gets behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.

In between your two accurate extremes is an optimal middle ground where drivers are engaged in the task and not over-stressed. This middle ground needs to be the target for optimal individual performance, but unfortunately it varies quite a bit from person to person. As such it does not bode well for standard speeds. Instead the clear implication is that people should seek their own "comfort zone" within reasonable limits.

I am very concerned that more speed enforcement on motorways will push too many downwards out of their optimal range.

Our motorways actually work very well with plenty of 90mph+ traffic and since they are absolutely the safest roads in the world we shouldn't be messing with them without absolutely compelling evidence.

[gone]

safespeed said:

gone said: Correct me if am wrong Paul, but I imagine that a lot of your work is followed and supported by those that want to be able to drive faster than the current laws allow. I would also think that there are a few but not many insurgents from the anti-speed lobby who peruse your journals You know I've seen very little evidence of this. You probably know that I don't campaign against speed limits or speed limit enforcement - instead I campaign for better road safety policy. I don't seem to attract the reckless boy racer type you appear to be imagining.

I was not imagining you attract reckless boy racer types at all. In fact probably quite the opposite because those sorts will not have the gumption to use websites like yours or even read what you print elsewhere.

I was imagining driving enthusiasts in company cars and those who take pleasure in spending lots of money on expensive machinery without the thought of increasing their training at the same time because they have 'got away with it' for many years!

[nel]

gone said:

From experience, driving faster does require greater concentration being applied. It also has the by product of producing fatigue much earlier than not having to concentrate for that degree. What is better then? 1. Someone who is concentrating hard for a time when they then start to tire without realising without reducingh their greater speed 2. Someone who is travelling at a lesser speed and who is not so fatigued becasue of the greater effort used than the faster one. In my opinion and experience from teaching advanced techniques, neither is desirable. Concentration should be paramount whether travelling at 30mph or 100mph. Unfortunately with the amount of available distractions in modern cars and those which are unavoidable, there is little hope of improving this whithout major re-education of everyone who gets behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.

Agree with you here Gone. The only thing that I'd add is that the ability to stay concentrated on what you're doing depends on stimulation.

A few months ago I tried to do a long distance drive (in France) while unhabitually keeping my speed to between 80 (the limit) and 90 mph on the wide, empty motorways - I was vbery quickly bored and finding it hard to stay alert. This actually made me feel that my driving was unsafe at this speed, so I cranked it up to 110 mph, increased the stimulus and drove on fully alert and far more in tune with my vehicle. No doubt I'll get flamed for saying this but it's really how I see the issue.

The downside of this is of course that once I get home I'm keyed up by the driving stimulus and can't go to sleep for a couple of hours. Had I done the drive at the lower speed, if I made it home without dropping off, I could probably have laid my head down and nodded off straight away!

[safespeed]

gone said:

I was not imagining you attract reckless boy racer types at all. In fact probably quite the opposite because those sorts will not have the gumption to use websites like yours or even read what you print elsewhere. I was imagining driving enthusiasts in company cars and those who take pleasure in spending lots of money on expensive machinery without the thought of increasing their training at the same time because they have 'got away with it' for many years!

OK, thanks for the clarification. I get many emails and forum posts from people who consider their driving carefully and deeply. I don't know exactly what proportion have taken extra training, but it seems to be far far beyond the proportion in the general population.

In general, the attitudes appear to be admirable. I'm somewhat relieved to be able to put my hand on my heart and say that I don't believe Safe Speed is generally used to justify selfish behaviour. Quite the opposite in fact.

[Peter Ward]

safespeed said:

Our motorways actually work very well with plenty of 90mph+ traffic and since they are absolutely the safest roads in the world we shouldn't be messing with them without absolutely compelling evidence.

[swilly]

gone said:

Correct me if am wrong Paul, but I imagine that a lot of your work is followed and supported by those that want to be able to drive faster than the current laws allow. I would also think that there are a few but not many insurgents from the anti-speed lobby who peruse your journals. If you have a vast following of believers, they will of course answer a simple question in favour of their objective.

I think you'll find the site is called SAFEspeed not FASTERspeed. Important difference. Speed matters you know

gone said:

From experience, driving faster does require greater concentration being applied. It also has the by product of producing fatigue much earlier than not having to concentrate for that degree.

I have to pick you up on this point.
It is driving faster that raises your concentration levels as the percieved danger increases and your brain kick starts your bodies reflexes and degree of information turnover by releasing ardenalin.

Similarly driving slowly in a manner percieved to be of no danger, causes your brain to do the opposite and slip into rest mode saving energy thus lacking concentration.[/quote]

[gone]

swilly said:

I have to pick you up on this point. It is driving faster that raises your concentration levels as the percieved danger increases and your brain kick starts your bodies reflexes and degree of information turnover by releasing ardenalin.

My point is that having driven at an increased pace for some time, how can you rely on the fact that you are as alert as you were when you started?
Could you not be travelling along at a speed which initially provoked heightened awareness and then gradually switch off as time oes on because of fatigue without realising? Would the speed be maintained whilst the concentration drops?

Its a fact. I see it on every course I run. After about 1 hour, things start to drop away from the range of concentration applied!

swilly said:

Similarly driving slowly in a manner percieved to be of no danger, causes your brain to do the opposite and slip into rest mode saving energy thus lacking concentration.

My point exactly. Get used to travelling at high speed and it eventually becomes tedious. UNTIL YOU NEED TO STOP QUICKLY! Then your reactions and thoughts are stimulated into waking you up especially if you do not manage it.

[DanL]

destroyer said:

... Who has the right to tell you? The government, that's who. if you want to live somewhere that doesn't quite practice democracy then move, there are plenty countrys that would accept you.

No - the government doesn't have the right to tell me what to do. If they did, that would be a dictatorship, not a democracy. I elect my MP to represent me, NOT to rule me.

Frankly, the belief that they *do* have the right to tell people what to do is what's wrong with this government...

Thus ends my highjack of the thread.

Dan

[swilly]

gone said:

My point is that having driven at an increased pace for some time, how can you rely on the fact that you are as alert as you were when you started?

The time spent driving and the time of day is probably more relevant than whether it is done at high speed or low speed.

I would say given equal durations/time of day, driving faster will promote greater concentration than driving slower.

[hertsbiker]

So if I safe 40 minutes per journey, and I make 10 journeys a week.... this is 400 minutes = 6 hours 40 mins. Maybe per WEEK.

So, if you can save 6 hours a week, that's a whole DAY in a month, at a nominal £10/hour... a lot of money.

This is why we must be allowed to go faster on the motorway.

[groucho]

DanL said:

destroyer said: ... Who has the right to tell you? The government, that's who. if you want to live somewhere that doesn't quite practice democracy then move, there are plenty countrys that would accept you. No - the government doesn't have the right to tell me what to do. If they did, that would be a dictatorship, not a democracy. I elect my MP to represent me, NOT to rule me. Frankly, the belief that they *do* have the right to tell people what to do is what's wrong with this government... Thus ends my highjack of the thread. Dan

Well said matey. That's DanL not Destroyer. I need a kip after reading what he has to say.

>> Edited by groucho on Friday 24th September 19:41

>> Edited by groucho on Friday 24th September 19:42

[TripleS]

gone said:

Get used to travelling at high speed and it eventually becomes tedious. UNTIL YOU NEED TO STOP QUICKLY! Then your reactions and thoughts are stimulated into waking you up especially if you do not manage it.

I don't go along with it 100% but there is some merit in that point. Maintaining very high speeds on motorways may create the problem to which 'gone' refers, but I see that as being less of a problem on other roads where the speed might vary between (for example) 40 and 90 mph.

It is the monotonous nature of motorway travel that presents the danger, whereas the widely varying speed necessitated by normal roads will, I suggest, tend to keep the concentration level high.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[ylee coyote]

back to the 70 mph being boring ..
I often have the option of motorway or "a" road

motorway is no quicker because of geography
but 9 times out of 10 if I am tired I will take the a road as it will wake me up !!

the brain need the stimulus to keep active
70 is not taxing the car ,me or the stereo...!!
Unless it is raining/fog/snow etc etc of course
then 70 mph can be too stimulating...

[Bobbins]

If the traffic is not too busy I try driving with the cruise control set at a little over 70 (so my actual speed is probably a little under 70). I do this mainly because you're more likely to get lasered when it's quieter and faster cars stand out more.
I get 2 problems
1)other drivers speed is very inconsistant - you'll pass them, then they pass you ete etc.
2)I end up travelling at about the same speed as half the other vehicles on the road - so overtaking takes an age - in practise you end up speeding up a little, but often the car I'm passing speeds up a little too, so it's awkward to slow back down again.
The whole thing flows better if you're doing an indicated 85-90 because you're going fast enough to cleany pass the other traffic and you can easily let the people doing 100 go past.