Safe Speed road safety manifesto
Discussion
I have just published a preliminary version of the Safe Speed road safety manifesto.
www.safespeed.org.uk/manifesto.html
It sets out exactly what we have to do to get British road safety "back on track".
Comments welcome as ever. This will go to a final version well within a week and will then also be available as a PDF.
www.safespeed.org.uk/manifesto.html
It sets out exactly what we have to do to get British road safety "back on track".
Comments welcome as ever. This will go to a final version well within a week and will then also be available as a PDF.
A very well written and thought out document. It makes many good points the problem is it will never be a cash cow like the current scameraships. It would however probably save hundreds of lives.
I espically support the higher levels of training to go quicker and the school education point.
However not so sure about Hendon, my understanding was there becomes a snobbery and elitism about it, perhaps a regional centre of exellence rather than a national one.
I espically support the higher levels of training to go quicker and the school education point.
However not so sure about Hendon, my understanding was there becomes a snobbery and elitism about it, perhaps a regional centre of exellence rather than a national one.
medicineman said:
However not so sure about Hendon, my understanding was there becomes a snobbery and elitism about it, perhaps a regional centre of exellence rather than a national one.
That was really a cover story from the hatchet men. Don't believe everything you hear!
There certainly was some elitism, but then in most cases it was well earned.
Paul, all in all a very good manifesto and is remakably well thought out.
I just hope that the numpties in various scamera pratnerships, in thepolice in traffic organisations and in government take the time to read (and understand) it.
This is where my doubts come in, as this government is well down the road in preparing a country of orwellian drones who accept the spin, lies and deliberate falsifications they publish. Combine this with the litiginous mentality of these drones and the chav mentality and one sees an atmosphere of complaceny that is absolutely frightening.
I see absolutely no chance for any of this being put into practice especially if Britain does not get off their arses and kick out these meddling liberalistic socio-fascists we have in local and national government at the next election.
The attitude of "we know better, so shut up and put up with it" is not only annoying, it is downright dangerous and I see, nay prophesy, a time in the very near future where anarchy wil reign (more than it already does e.g. no-go zones in towns)!
It is time Britain returned to a responsible mentality, where work is considered a virtue, where pride in what one does is respected and where the idiotic litigiousness is thrown out by intelligent judgements by common-sense lawgivers and judges.
I just hope that the numpties in various scamera pratnerships, in thepolice in traffic organisations and in government take the time to read (and understand) it.
This is where my doubts come in, as this government is well down the road in preparing a country of orwellian drones who accept the spin, lies and deliberate falsifications they publish. Combine this with the litiginous mentality of these drones and the chav mentality and one sees an atmosphere of complaceny that is absolutely frightening.
I see absolutely no chance for any of this being put into practice especially if Britain does not get off their arses and kick out these meddling liberalistic socio-fascists we have in local and national government at the next election.
The attitude of "we know better, so shut up and put up with it" is not only annoying, it is downright dangerous and I see, nay prophesy, a time in the very near future where anarchy wil reign (more than it already does e.g. no-go zones in towns)!
It is time Britain returned to a responsible mentality, where work is considered a virtue, where pride in what one does is respected and where the idiotic litigiousness is thrown out by intelligent judgements by common-sense lawgivers and judges.
nonegreen said:
Much of what you say is excellent. I do however still think that much of the research on driver training has proved it is of no value in preventing accidents.
It's true that driver skills training has no been found to be of little value in preventing accidents, but driver attitude training does. However, I like most of my ilk (advanced driver trainers), don't actually do a lot of skills training. Most people have enough control skills to successfully drive a car (although we do work on smoothness a lot), but need to develop the right attitude to safety, i.e. the observation, planning and anticipation that then result in managing their own safety rather than relying on others to do it for them.
nonegreen said:
Much of what you say is excellent. I do however still think that much of the research on driver training has proved it is of no value in preventing accidents.
manifesto said:
Done "properly" there are great safety benefits from advanced driver training. There is a false perception that "training" confers skills and that those skills are used but risk values are preserved or worsened due to increased confidence. But it is certain that the right sort of training reduces accident risk. The right sort of training concentrates on such features as:
observation
hazard perception
anticipation
attitudes
margins for error
defensive strategies
best practice
knowledge and understanding of risks
These features are central to the principles of "road craft". Vehicle handling skills are useful, but are only beneficial to safety when combined with items in the list above.
There isn't much in the way of formal science to analyse the benefits of well designed training, but there's plenty of practical evidence. There is science to support a link between attitudes and crash risks. Good training develops good attitudes.
The so called evidence that training is worthless examines skills training in car control and so on. It isn't that training is worthless, instead it's that there's been a lot of worthless training.
StressedDave said:
Much of what you say is excellent. I do however still think that much of the research on driver training has proved it is of no value in preventing accidents.
It's true that driver skills training has no been found to be of little value in preventing accidents, but driver attitude training does. However, I like most of my ilk (advanced driver trainers), don't actually do a lot of skills training. Most people have enough control skills to successfully drive a car (although we do work on smoothness a lot), but need to develop the right attitude to safety, i.e. the observation, planning and anticipation that then result in managing their own safety rather than relying on others to do it for them.
Yep. Brilliant. I think there's also a lot to be said for training in defensive strategies and best practice.
Some of the defensive strategies stuff could be shown clearly in a 30 second TV commercial. Take the rear end collision as an example. In a common case someone stops for traffic and then some time later someone else comes along behind and shunts them into the car in front. Well, REALLY! This is just so easy to fix. All we have to do is stop 100 feet short of the obstruction ahead, watch the mirror and drive forward out of the way if someone is in trouble behind. SORTED! But how many drivers know?
Great stuff. A very good manifesto.
There were just a few points I wasn’t sure about.
Under “Develop incentives for higher level driver training”, it was suggested that speed limits for highly trained drivers might be increased.
This is an interesting idea, but it also seemed to me to be the only proposal in the manifesto that raised the spectre of policing based on numbers rather than on road safety: the accused was driving at a speed higher than his 50-point licence allows.
“Intelligent Speed Adaptation” is such a depressing idea. I feel I’d be far less safe if I couldn’t set my own speed, usually with plenty in reserve if I want it, though I think I’ve only once got myself into a situation where the only way out was to go a lot faster – stupid, dangerous, and my own fault of course.
Nevertheless, if ISA ever became compulsory my driving style would have to change, as I’d no longer be able to sit back, assess what’s happening in front, then move up, nip by, and on. This is engaging rather than stressful, and feels very safe in light to medium traffic as it maximizes space.
Although I agree on instinct that “the effect on the road safety culture would also be marked and very negative,” what if it were “proved” that ISA has benefits?
OK, I’m waffling here, or not quite clear about what I’m trying to say. I’m looking for arguments against ISA that don’t turn on road safety.
Driving isn’t only about safety, it’s also rewarding and can even be fun. The rewards come from exercising responsibility and skill. Limiting freedom could limit this seriously, and would be widely resented. People wouldn’t warm to ISA. They’d find ways of uncoupling the limiters. Many more people would begin to see the state as the enemy.
But also, whatever initial results suggested, ISA would inevitably be a huge continent-wide road safety experiment. The right not to be experimented on unless you’ve consented is pretty fundamental. Maybe that’s the sort of argument I’m looking for?
There were just a few points I wasn’t sure about.
Under “Develop incentives for higher level driver training”, it was suggested that speed limits for highly trained drivers might be increased.
This is an interesting idea, but it also seemed to me to be the only proposal in the manifesto that raised the spectre of policing based on numbers rather than on road safety: the accused was driving at a speed higher than his 50-point licence allows.
“Intelligent Speed Adaptation” is such a depressing idea. I feel I’d be far less safe if I couldn’t set my own speed, usually with plenty in reserve if I want it, though I think I’ve only once got myself into a situation where the only way out was to go a lot faster – stupid, dangerous, and my own fault of course.
Nevertheless, if ISA ever became compulsory my driving style would have to change, as I’d no longer be able to sit back, assess what’s happening in front, then move up, nip by, and on. This is engaging rather than stressful, and feels very safe in light to medium traffic as it maximizes space.
Although I agree on instinct that “the effect on the road safety culture would also be marked and very negative,” what if it were “proved” that ISA has benefits?
OK, I’m waffling here, or not quite clear about what I’m trying to say. I’m looking for arguments against ISA that don’t turn on road safety.
Driving isn’t only about safety, it’s also rewarding and can even be fun. The rewards come from exercising responsibility and skill. Limiting freedom could limit this seriously, and would be widely resented. People wouldn’t warm to ISA. They’d find ways of uncoupling the limiters. Many more people would begin to see the state as the enemy.
But also, whatever initial results suggested, ISA would inevitably be a huge continent-wide road safety experiment. The right not to be experimented on unless you’ve consented is pretty fundamental. Maybe that’s the sort of argument I’m looking for?
gute_fahrt said:
ISA would inevitably be a huge continent-wide road safety experiment. The right not to be experimented on unless you’ve consented is pretty fundamental. Maybe that’s the sort of argument I’m looking for?
Your rights are being eroded today,the german greenslime want ALL cars to be limited to 80kph (led by their useless wnaker of a Foreign Minister Fischer, who by the way has NO educational qualifications whatsoever, is a convicted criminal and has NEVER worked in his life!), have a max 50 HP and run on cowfarts, and that by 2010 throughout Europe..the slime have already proposed it in the EU council and are using the Kyoto protocols as their leverage!!
Time to get the shotguns out of storage and do some politician culling......
safespeed said:
Some of the defensive strategies stuff could be shown clearly in a 30 second TV commercial. Take the rear end collision as an example. In a common case someone stops for traffic and then some time later someone else comes along behind and shunts them into the car in front. Well, REALLY! This is just so easy to fix. All we have to do is stop 100 feet short of the obstruction ahead, watch the mirror and drive forward out of the way if someone is in trouble behind. SORTED! But how many drivers know?
I do this! Especially when stopped at temporary traffic lights on when i'm on the brow of a hill and the traffic has stopped on the other side. I just hang back so that the car approaching from behind know's i've stopped, instead of having them come over the hill straight into the back of my stationary car.
pmanson said:
Some of the defensive strategies stuff could be shown clearly in a 30 second TV commercial. Take the rear end collision as an example. In a common case someone stops for traffic and then some time later someone else comes along behind and shunts them into the car in front. Well, REALLY! This is just so easy to fix. All we have to do is stop 100 feet short of the obstruction ahead, watch the mirror and drive forward out of the way if someone is in trouble behind. SORTED! But how many drivers know?
I do this! Especially when stopped at temporary traffic lights on when i'm on the brow of a hill and the traffic has stopped on the other side. I just hang back so that the car approaching from behind know's i've stopped, instead of having them come over the hill straight into the back of my stationary car.
The next one to watch for is "what happens next". Classic situation is that you hang back, car behind sees you and slows, so you move up to the end of the queue.
Whereupon the muppet behind follows you and stops a foot off your bumper! On the other hand, if you stay where you were he'll get arsey about it.
My compromise solution in this situation is to glide away ever so gently in first gear, so that I'm closing the gap on the queue enough to keep him happy, but I'm doing so very slowly and with instant acceleration available should someone come tearing up behind. Anyone any better solutions?
BlackStuff said:
The next one to watch for is "what happens next". Classic situation is that you hang back, car behind sees you and slows, so you move up to the end of the queue.
Whereupon the muppet behind follows you and stops a foot off your bumper! On the other hand, if you stay where you were he'll get arsey about it.
My compromise solution in this situation is to glide away ever so gently in first gear, so that I'm closing the gap on the queue enough to keep him happy, but I'm doing so very slowly and with instant acceleration available should someone come tearing up behind. Anyone any better solutions?
That's more or less what I do. One modification that I sometimes use is to find my escape space to the side instead (usually the nearside onto the verge).
I slow following traffic early when possible then it's less obvious to the followers that you're "doing something strange" that they don't understand.
I don't stop defending my rear (!) until there are at least four or five vehicles behind.
>> Edited by safespeed on Tuesday 16th November 14:40
And I thought it was just me that weighs up how wide the verge is, how severe the kerb etc, so I know in advance how serious the impending crash has to look before I'll make a dive for it!
On a related topic, another (possibly selfish) defensive trick I do is to head for the 3rd lane when the traffic starts to slow up on the motorway. My rather contorted thinking here is that if I am going to end up getting shunted, then I'd rather it wasn't by an HGV. If you move to L3 then in theory at least that can't happen. You might be ten vehicles into the queue in L1 but if a loaded 40 tonner ploughs into the back it's still a major problem!
On a related topic, another (possibly selfish) defensive trick I do is to head for the 3rd lane when the traffic starts to slow up on the motorway. My rather contorted thinking here is that if I am going to end up getting shunted, then I'd rather it wasn't by an HGV. If you move to L3 then in theory at least that can't happen. You might be ten vehicles into the queue in L1 but if a loaded 40 tonner ploughs into the back it's still a major problem!
BlackStuff said:
On a related topic, another (possibly selfish) defensive trick I do is to head for the 3rd lane when the traffic starts to slow up on the motorway. My rather contorted thinking here is that if I am going to end up getting shunted, then I'd rather it wasn't by an HGV. If you move to L3 then in theory at least that can't happen. You might be ten vehicles into the queue in L1 but if a loaded 40 tonner ploughs into the back it's still a major problem!
That's a new one on me, but I like it.
I usually seem to be in L3 anyway for completely different reasons.
safespeed said:
On a related topic, another (possibly selfish) defensive trick I do is to head for the 3rd lane when the traffic starts to slow up on the motorway. My rather contorted thinking here is that if I am going to end up getting shunted, then I'd rather it wasn't by an HGV. If you move to L3 then in theory at least that can't happen. You might be ten vehicles into the queue in L1 but if a loaded 40 tonner ploughs into the back it's still a major problem!
That's a new one on me, but I like it.
I usually seem to be in L3 anyway for completely different reasons.
Quite!
I see this as being the diametric opposite of those people who foolishly leap for the lane they perceive to be travelling fastest. It makes me wince when the traffic in L3 starts to brake, so all the numpties start diving into closing gaps in front of lorries in L1/2.
JMGS4 said:
Your rights are being eroded today......
I hadn’t appreciated how serious this is. I’d thought ISA was just more SciFi trotted out by Greens in an attempt to worry motorists and other users of the 21st century.
In 2001, the German Government Rejected Intelligent Speed Adaptation Systems & Motorcyclists Agreed
But despite what seem to be overwhelming objections real money is being spent on this.
The UK Department for Transport is spending 2 million quid to equip 20 cars with ISA as part of a study at Leeds University. A while ago, IIRC, SafeSpeed posted that some or all of these vehicles had crashed, but I can’t find any info on this.
Despite the fact that the study will not be completed before December 2005,
PACTS said:
the mandatory dynamic form of ISA ... would lead to a reduction of 36% in all injury accidents and of 59% in fatal crashes. The reduction in fatal crashes is particularly high since ISA ensures compliance with the speed limit and since research has already identified that targeting the highest speeding drivers will bring the largest reduction in road crashes.
They’re just making it up as they go along.
StressedDave said:
Much of what you say is excellent. I do however still think that much of the research on driver training has proved it is of no value in preventing accidents.
It's true that driver skills training has no been found to be of little value in preventing accidents, but driver attitude training does. However, I like most of my ilk (advanced driver trainers), don't actually do a lot of skills training. Most people have enough control skills to successfully drive a car (although we do work on smoothness a lot), but need to develop the right attitude to safety, i.e. the observation, planning and anticipation that then result in managing their own safety rather than relying on others to do it for them.
Hmmmm interesting, the americans have hosted most of the research, perhaps they all have a bad attitude.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff