SSS for Von - it's why your wrong!
Discussion
safespeed said:
vonhosen said:
My contention is that as people get to higher speeds (with higher risk) they mostly don't have the required skills to deal with greater surprise OR think about how their greater speed impacts on causing surprise or misjudgement by others. We already know that those same people (vast swathes of them) are ill disciplined on leaving sufficient space.
Clearly we do not have a situation where normal driving leads to the ultimate violation of Steve's equation (i.e. crashes). Crashes are rare. Yet we have situations on every single car journey where speed is varied to zero as a risk control measure.
Controlling one term in isolation in an attempt to control risk is actually pretty absurd. That's the point. Driving risk management depends on controlling all three terms in balance together continuously.
We all know that tailgating is poor driving. We all know that it is risky. We all know that it doesn't always result in collisions, but that fact doesn't make it any less wrong because of the potential & risk it causes.
Of course drivers have to manage all of the above. They are expected to, they are tested to show that they can. Limiting speed as a control measure doesn't absolve you of your responsibility in that regard.
Of course it isn't dealt with in isolation. Police officers deal with poor driving that comes under teh other areas of surprise & space.
safespeed said:
ATG said:
safespeed said:
... Surely the experience of driving proves that the three terms are continuously dynamic and managed in real time by drivers?
Yes of course it does. That is preceisely why bandying silly pseudo formulae like Risk = Speed * Surprise / Space is stupid. All I did was to take the silly formula at face value and derive from it a result that is clearly wrong.I think it represents a very fundamental view of the nature of driving risk management. It's a logical relationship, not a mathematical one.
Then dont represent it as a mathematical equation. It does your case no favours whatosoever. Classic pseudo-science presentation.
s2art said:
safespeed said:
ATG said:
safespeed said:
... Surely the experience of driving proves that the three terms are continuously dynamic and managed in real time by drivers?
Yes of course it does. That is preceisely why bandying silly pseudo formulae like Risk = Speed * Surprise / Space is stupid. All I did was to take the silly formula at face value and derive from it a result that is clearly wrong.I think it represents a very fundamental view of the nature of driving risk management. It's a logical relationship, not a mathematical one.
Then dont represent it as a mathematical equation. It does your case no favours whatosoever. Classic pseudo-science presentation.
Why do you think it's presented as mathematical equation? I never did. In fact it's obvious to me that it couldn't be, despite the presence of mathematical operators.
vonhosen said:
Of course drivers have to manage all of the above. They are expected to, they are tested to show that they can. Limiting speed as a control measure doesn't absolve you of your responsibility in that regard.
I don't know, Von, perhaps you need to think about it some more. I honestly don't think Steve's equation leaves any room for doubt. I've sent Steve an email inviting him here to see if he has anything to say about it.
safespeed said:
vonhosen said:
Of course drivers have to manage all of the above. They are expected to, they are tested to show that they can. Limiting speed as a control measure doesn't absolve you of your responsibility in that regard.
I don't know, Von, perhaps you need to think about it some more. I honestly don't think Steve's equation leaves any room for doubt. I've sent Steve an email inviting him here to see if he has anything to say about it.
ATG said:
safespeed said:
vonhosen said:
Of course drivers have to manage all of the above. They are expected to, they are tested to show that they can. Limiting speed as a control measure doesn't absolve you of your responsibility in that regard.
I don't know, Von, perhaps you need to think about it some more. I honestly don't think Steve's equation leaves any room for doubt. I've sent Steve an email inviting him here to see if he has anything to say about it.
The government, with their one club approach?
s2art said:
safespeed said:
ATG said:
safespeed said:
... Surely the experience of driving proves that the three terms are continuously dynamic and managed in real time by drivers?
Yes of course it does. That is preceisely why bandying silly pseudo formulae like Risk = Speed * Surprise / Space is stupid. All I did was to take the silly formula at face value and derive from it a result that is clearly wrong.I think it represents a very fundamental view of the nature of driving risk management. It's a logical relationship, not a mathematical one.
Then dont represent it as a mathematical equation. It does your case no favours whatosoever. Classic pseudo-science presentation.
Unless one can mathematically define the relevant parameters ('risk' 'surprise' and 'space') then it clearly cannot be viewed to be a mathematical equation.
Presentation of it in that format gives MOP a simple yet intuitive feel of the issues involved.
safespeed said:
ATG said:
safespeed said:
... Surely the experience of driving proves that the three terms are continuously dynamic and managed in real time by drivers?
Yes of course it does. That is preceisely why bandying silly pseudo formulae like Risk = Speed * Surprise / Space is stupid. All I did was to take the silly formula at face value and derive from it a result that is clearly wrong.I think it represents a very fundamental view of the nature of driving risk management. It's a logical relationship, not a mathematical one.
It seems to be a matter of principles. All the individual elements still need judgement - speed, speed differential, distance, time etc. - and loads more in order to keep the final result right.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Mathematical? Logical? Or just a spin doctor's graphic?
I don't think it's an equation to start off with, and since terms aren't closely defined, it can't live in the world of mathematics or logic. It's certainly a simplification, although it's probably a distortion as well. Above all, I don't think it's that useful, unlike many simplifications.
To be honest, I'm not sure how it helps your case, Paul, since you appear to be saying that risk is proportional to speed. Even I don't think that's the case. Is it three times as dangerous to drive at 90 as 30 in a given motorway situation? Is it only three times as dangerous to drive at 270 on the same motorway? Cripes, if that's the case then lets get the speed police everywhere and quickly!
Perhaps the "Surprise" is what you have to do to that equation to make it work...
I don't think it's an equation to start off with, and since terms aren't closely defined, it can't live in the world of mathematics or logic. It's certainly a simplification, although it's probably a distortion as well. Above all, I don't think it's that useful, unlike many simplifications.
To be honest, I'm not sure how it helps your case, Paul, since you appear to be saying that risk is proportional to speed. Even I don't think that's the case. Is it three times as dangerous to drive at 90 as 30 in a given motorway situation? Is it only three times as dangerous to drive at 270 on the same motorway? Cripes, if that's the case then lets get the speed police everywhere and quickly!
Perhaps the "Surprise" is what you have to do to that equation to make it work...
vonhosen said:
safespeed said:
safespeed said:
Hi all and especially Vonhosen,
[...]
[...]
I hope examination of the materials will prove once and for all, that you cannot hope to control risk by reference to only ONE of the three parameters in Steve's equation.
[...]
[...]
I hope examination of the materials will prove once and for all, that you cannot hope to control risk by reference to only ONE of the three parameters in Steve's equation.
Hi Von,
No comment at all on the original post in this thread?
Paul
I'm not being rude, but is that supposed to be ground breaking ?
Higher speed = higher risk , yes
Greater surprise = greater risk , yes
More space = less risk , yes
My contention is that as people get to higher speeds (with higher risk) they mostly don't have the required skills to deal with greater surprise OR think about how their greater speed impacts on causing surprise or misjudgement by others. We already know that those same people (vast swathes of them) are ill disciplined on leaving sufficient space. If their judgement in that area is so poor what makes you think it's any better at anything else ?
Of course 31 in a 30 isn't going to make much difference, but I am not an advocater of prosecuting people for 31 in a 30 as you well know. There is always going to be a cut off point though.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 18th June 11:23
Mr Vanhosen, Can I ask, how many people have you nicked for speeding, against how many you have nicked for not keeping adequate space or tailgate'ing at speed?. not fussy about exact figures, rough percentages will do. I'm just curious to know where your accident prevention/law enforcement priorities lay. Honest answer, now. no little white lies...
any other trafpol are welcome to submit their figures if they wish to.
police state said:
vonhosen said:
safespeed said:
safespeed said:
Hi all and especially Vonhosen,
[...]
[...]
I hope examination of the materials will prove once and for all, that you cannot hope to control risk by reference to only ONE of the three parameters in Steve's equation.
[...]
[...]
I hope examination of the materials will prove once and for all, that you cannot hope to control risk by reference to only ONE of the three parameters in Steve's equation.
Hi Von,
No comment at all on the original post in this thread?
Paul
I'm not being rude, but is that supposed to be ground breaking ?
Higher speed = higher risk , yes
Greater surprise = greater risk , yes
More space = less risk , yes
My contention is that as people get to higher speeds (with higher risk) they mostly don't have the required skills to deal with greater surprise OR think about how their greater speed impacts on causing surprise or misjudgement by others. We already know that those same people (vast swathes of them) are ill disciplined on leaving sufficient space. If their judgement in that area is so poor what makes you think it's any better at anything else ?
Of course 31 in a 30 isn't going to make much difference, but I am not an advocater of prosecuting people for 31 in a 30 as you well know. There is always going to be a cut off point though.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 18th June 11:23
Mr Vanhosen, Can I ask, how many people have you nicked for speeding, against how many you have nicked for not keeping adequate space or tailgate'ing at speed?. not fussy about exact figures, rough percentages will do. I'm just curious to know where your accident prevention/law enforcement priorities lay. Honest answer, now. no little white lies...
any other trafpol are welcome to submit their figures if they wish to.
I'm not trafpol & never have been.
Of all the road traffic offences I have reported people for, I would imagine speeding would be one of the lowest (if not the lowest) in terms of actual numbers for one offence. I've arrested more drink drivers than I've reported for speeding.
I have also never operated a laser.
Perhaps I should be doing more.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 18th June 23:19
safespeed said:
s2art said:
safespeed said:
ATG said:
safespeed said:
... Surely the experience of driving proves that the three terms are continuously dynamic and managed in real time by drivers?
Yes of course it does. That is preceisely why bandying silly pseudo formulae like Risk = Speed * Surprise / Space is stupid. All I did was to take the silly formula at face value and derive from it a result that is clearly wrong.I think it represents a very fundamental view of the nature of driving risk management. It's a logical relationship, not a mathematical one.
Then dont represent it as a mathematical equation. It does your case no favours whatosoever. Classic pseudo-science presentation.
Why do you think it's presented as mathematical equation? I never did. In fact it's obvious to me that it couldn't be, despite the presence of mathematical operators.
If it couldnt be then its even more silly. You refered to it as an equation, it looks like an attempt at a mathematical equation relating several variables, anyone who sees it would think it an attempt at a scientific relationship. Sorry SS this is bad, damaging to your credibility and too easily open to criticism.
To me, risk = concentration or namely lack of it.
I drive successfully at a very wide range of speeds that I shouldn't mention here, I've done three figures safely every day for years. So to me, as Paul implies, to concentrate on speed alone as a means of lowering fatalities as the partnerships do, does not and can never make our roads safer.
I drive successfully at a very wide range of speeds that I shouldn't mention here, I've done three figures safely every day for years. So to me, as Paul implies, to concentrate on speed alone as a means of lowering fatalities as the partnerships do, does not and can never make our roads safer.
7db said:
To be honest, I'm not sure how it helps your case, Paul, since you appear to be saying that risk is proportional to speed. Even I don't think that's the case.
I'm suprised at that statement coming from you 7db.
Risk will always be proportional to speed, if you're driving a vehicle on a stretch of tarmac littered with hazards. The risk in the higher speeds will of course be negated by greater levels of concentration, that in itself resulting in allowing more space. Many drivers don't do that, but should we be punishing their speed or encouraging them to allow more space, given that virtually everyone does and will continue to break the speed limit?
Punishing speed is simple and financialy viable, but doesn't produce results in terms of safer roads.
Exceeding the 70 limit on the motorway when conditions allow ain't the issue.
This is reflected by the sheer number of accidents that happen on my regular commute down the M1 each morning (J26-23) which happen when it is nigh impossible to reach the speed limit, let alone exceed it. This normally seems to involve a rear end shunt or a misjudged lane change.
The main danger is from having 3 lanes of traffic all driving at similar speeds, many too close (especially in lane 3!).
This is reflected by the sheer number of accidents that happen on my regular commute down the M1 each morning (J26-23) which happen when it is nigh impossible to reach the speed limit, let alone exceed it. This normally seems to involve a rear end shunt or a misjudged lane change.
The main danger is from having 3 lanes of traffic all driving at similar speeds, many too close (especially in lane 3!).
vonhosen said:
safespeed said:
vonhosen said:
My contention is that as people get to higher speeds (with higher risk) they mostly don't have the required skills to deal with greater surprise OR think about how their greater speed impacts on causing surprise or misjudgement by others. We already know that those same people (vast swathes of them) are ill disciplined on leaving sufficient space.
Clearly we do not have a situation where normal driving leads to the ultimate violation of Steve's equation (i.e. crashes). Crashes are rare. Yet we have situations on every single car journey where speed is varied to zero as a risk control measure.
Controlling one term in isolation in an attempt to control risk is actually pretty absurd. That's the point. Driving risk management depends on controlling all three terms in balance together continuously.
We all know that tailgating is poor driving. We all know that it is risky. We all know that it doesn't always result in collisions, but that fact doesn't make it any less wrong because of the potential & risk it causes.
Of course drivers have to manage all of the above. They are expected to, they are tested to show that they can.
They are tested to a very limited level - one which does not test on a motorway in which matching entering und exiting are probably the most risky - followed closely by judging speed of approaching overtakers in the outer lanes - und manoeuvring accordingly und safely.
They do not do a night/dusk ride.. und the test ist set around a centre - where you will find learner drivers practising their reverses und so on.
The test rarely goes on a rural - unless ist in rural area to start with.
They then build their confidence after the test und sometimes with a Pass Plus course afterwards
vonhosen said:
Limiting speed as a control measure doesn't absolve you of your responsibility in that regard.
Ist why my family tend to go off on one about COAST wherever they post or campaign to..
To us - driving, biking und cycling to this set of principles diffuse risk. Or "surprise" elements vonhosen said:
Of course it isn't dealt with in isolation. Police officers deal with poor driving that comes under teh other areas of surprise & space.
What police officers? Ach .. you mean those invisible ones....or plastic ones ...
police state said:
vonhosen said:
safespeed said:
safespeed said:
Hi all and especially Vonhosen,
[...]
[...]
I hope examination of the materials will prove once and for all, that you cannot hope to control risk by reference to only ONE of the three parameters in Steve's equation.
[...]
[...]
I hope examination of the materials will prove once and for all, that you cannot hope to control risk by reference to only ONE of the three parameters in Steve's equation.
Hi Von,
No comment at all on the original post in this thread?
Paul
I'm not being rude, but is that supposed to be ground breaking ?
Higher speed = higher risk , yes
Greater surprise = greater risk , yes
More space = less risk , yes
My contention is that as people get to higher speeds (with higher risk) they mostly don't have the required skills to deal with greater surprise OR think about how their greater speed impacts on causing surprise or misjudgement by others. We already know that those same people (vast swathes of them) are ill disciplined on leaving sufficient space. If their judgement in that area is so poor what makes you think it's any better at anything else ?
Of course 31 in a 30 isn't going to make much difference, but I am not an advocater of prosecuting people for 31 in a 30 as you well know. There is always going to be a cut off point though.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 18th June 11:23
Mr Vanhosen, Can I ask, how many people have you nicked for speeding, against how many you have nicked for not keeping adequate space or tailgate'ing at speed?. not fussy about exact figures, rough percentages will do. I'm just curious to know where your accident prevention/law enforcement priorities lay. Honest answer, now. no little white lies...
any other trafpol are welcome to submit their figures if they wish to.
These figures cannot be separated as precisely as you would like.
I have reported many hundreds for speeding.
I'll probably have reported less than 50 for Sec 3RTA(careless driving) primarily involving tailgating.
But many of us who sit at the motorway junction or wherever will have their attention drawn to a speeder because he is tailgating, or driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions or traffic volume. The driver will ultimately be reported for the speeding offence, but the primary risk is the inappropriateness of his behaviour or speed.
safespeed said:
vonhosen said:
Of course drivers have to manage all of the above. They are expected to, they are tested to show that they can. Limiting speed as a control measure doesn't absolve you of your responsibility in that regard.
I don't know, Von, perhaps you need to think about it some more. I honestly don't think Steve's equation leaves any room for doubt. I've sent Steve an email inviting him here to see if he has anything to say about it.
Paul,
I think there is another 'S' missing from this relationship, that being 'Skill' - what may constitute a huge risk for one driver could be quite minimal for another, though I guess this is tied in quite closely to the surprise factor.
best
Ex
ATG said:
IaHa said:
...The driver will ultimately be reported for the speeding offence, but the primary risk is the inappropriateness of his behaviour or speed.
People have got to take the logic of this on board, though I doubt some will ...ATG, the logic in IaHas quote refers to policing by people, where inappropriate driving can be penalised in many ways at any speed. Inappropriate driving can only be penalised by a box on a stick if it happens above a speed limit. Is that what you mean? because your comment can be taken many ways
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff