Questions for Vonhosen

[safespeed]

Hi Von,

You probably agree that one of the hallmarks of a skilled driver is that he uses a wide range of speeds - slow when conditions are hazardous and fast when conditions are clear. In this way he is both efficient and well prepared to deal with hazards.

I believe that the present very high degree of emphasis on speed limits is reducing the range of speeds that drivers use - slower in the clearest places and faster in the most hazardous places.

I see no benefit in slowing drivers where there are fewest hazards - basically because there is nothing to hit. And remember that any good driver will be going fastest when hazards are fewest.

Q1. Do you agree that our best (most effective, least crash prone) drivers use a wide range of speeds?

Q2. If drivers use a slimmer range of speeds, (i.e. faster in the slowest places and slower in the fastest places) do you agree that net danger is likely to increase?

Q3. Do you agree that it is POSSIBLE that present speed enforcement policy is slimming the range of speeds chosen by drivers at BOTH the low end and the high end?

[vonhosen]

safespeed said:

Hi Von, You probably agree that one of the hallmarks of a skilled driver is that he uses a wide range of speeds - slow when conditions are hazardous and fast when conditions are clear. In this way he is both efficient and well prepared to deal with hazards. I believe that the present very high degree of emphasis on speed limits is reducing the range of speeds that drivers use - slower in the clearest places and faster in the most hazardous places. I see no benefit in slowing drivers where there are fewest hazards - basically because there is nothing to hit. And remember that any good driver will be going fastest when hazards are fewest. Q1. Do you agree that our best (most effective, least crash prone) drivers use a wide range of speeds? Q2. If drivers use a slimmer range of speeds, (i.e. faster in the slowest places and slower in the fastest places) do you agree that net danger is likely to increase? Q3. Do you agree that it is POSSIBLE that present speed enforcement policy is slimming the range of speeds chosen by drivers at BOTH the low end and the high end?

Q1. If we take speed limits out of the equation, the very best drivers will use the widest range of speed & it will always be safe for the circumstances. The speeds they travel at will not in any way adversely affect the processes they employ in their driving plans. The will realise potential for safe progress quicker than the standard driver & they will appreciate the need for speed loss & do something about it earlier than the standard driver.

Q2. If drivers travel quicker in places that they should be slower, that will increase danger. But if they don't increase speed substantialy where they could safely, that doesn't increase danger.

Q3. If drivers are encouraged to drive faster than safe speeds at the low end of the scale then there is no possible about it, danger will increase.


The situation we should have is that everybody is applying the rationale behind my answer to Q2. I am saying that we can't have the state of affairs referred to in my answer to Q1 without a much higher degree of training, not simply by self discovery. You are complaining that we have the state of affairs that are eluded to in Q3. My answer to that is that there is nothing in the law, the highway code or driver training, that should lead people to believe that traveling at the speed limit is a guarantee of safe speed. If that message is not getting across, then it needs to be pushed harder.

If people are allowed to explore beyond our limits, to the point where they can travel unfetered at a speed they only have to judge safe for the circumstances. The increase in speed that brings in my experience, does result in a performance hit on the driver, resulting in judgement errors & safety issues. This increases risk through both the extra energy by virtue of that speed & the driver errors. They can be trained to overcome this and then be able to operate safely within a greater performance range, but to let them try to teach themselves to do it would be madness IMHO.



>> Edited by vonhosen on Friday 31st March 15:21

[TripleS]

So my admittedly self-taught basis actually counts for nothing at all - well nothing good anyhow.

Without formal advanced driver training have I been completely wasting my time and effort? 'Tis a sobering thought!

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[osgrooves]

Think of the years of effort and evalutaion that has gone into the creation of roadcraft.

You would be pretty big headed to think that you could equate all that yourself. Far better to stand on the shoulders of giants.

[vonhosen]

TripleS said:

So my admittedly self-taught basis actually counts for nothing at all - well nothing good anyhow. Without formal advanced driver training have I been completely wasting my time and effort? 'Tis a sobering thought! Best wishes all, Dave.

That doesn't mean that your system might not be fine Dave.

My point is that if we are to allow it on our roads, the competency needs to at least be tested first. We can't just take people's word for it that they are good & safe. We all know that a lot of drivers actual ability is far outstripped by their perceived ability.

It is just my experience that most people who do tend to come to advanced training, don't have safe systems in place already & when the speed rises they do make errors of judgement. They wouldn't always result in a collision if they hadn't been stopped (because circumstances do pan out to be favourable) but the potential was there & the inherent fault was also.

>> Edited by vonhosen on Friday 31st March 16:04

[turbobloke]

osgrooves said:

Think of the years of effort and evalutaion that has gone into the creation of roadcraft. You would be pretty big headed to think that you could equate all that yourself. Far better to stand on the shoulders of giants.

What if Dave is a Giant who could have written the book and a sizeable appendix based on his years?

After all when you get into it, roadcraft is basically common sense. Advanced Driver Traning is a relative term, it's really Extended Driver Training (beyond the full licence test) but there's an industry attached to it so 'Advanced' is a good marketing tool. Dave might only need to be unchallenged vertically to accomplish a similar feat., who knows.

Having received extended training and sat with others who've had extended training and compared licence and insurance notes with the above as well as the experiences, I'd say that receiving training and deriving permanent benefit from it are very different things.

Everyone's driving could improve and update training is never wasted, but the law of diminishing returns is real and some of the stuff you hear from each sector of the industry as they try to impress and to outdo other sectors isn't just anal it's colonic.

Some of the rest is plain daft - take vh's apparent insistence to 'glance' at the speedo in an overtake...if all you'd see is a blur and you'd lose sight of a rapidly approaching horizon, why the hell would anyone do that? I know where from and when I'm going out, and I know where and when I'll be back in, and that won;t alter or benefit from or be assisted in any possible way by a glance at the speedo. What is being asked of me is that I put a greater priority on staying legal than staying safe and helping to keep others safe - no thanks.

[vonhosen]

turbobloke said:

Some of the rest is plain daft - take vh's apparent insistence to 'glance' at the speedo in an overtake...

I don't.
I don't go if it's going to mean breaking the limit. The speedo during the overtake doesn't come into it then, because it's not happening, the option to overtake is not available.

There is no danger in the overtake, if it's not being attempted.

>> Edited by vonhosen on Friday 31st March 16:15

[safespeed]

vonhosen said:

safespeed said: Q3. Do you agree that it is POSSIBLE that present speed enforcement policy is slimming the range of speeds chosen by drivers at BOTH the low end and the high end? Q3. If drivers are encouraged to drive faster than safe speeds at the low end of the scale then there is no possible about it, danger will increase.

Many thanks for your reply. Clearly we're narrowing down the areas of disagreement.

But that's not really an answer to Q3 is it?

vonhosen said:

My answer to that is that there is nothing in the law, the highway code or driver training, that should lead people to believe that traveling at the speed limit is a guarantee of safe speed. If that message is not getting across, then it needs to be pushed harder.

With 6,500 speed camera, backed by law, 2 millions fines per year and a multi-million pound propaganda machine, how on earth can we 'push harder' with an ENTIRELY different message?

Cameras say: The speed limit is the safe limit. Cameras and their implied messages are a daily experience for UK drivers. They are at the road side, in the papers and on the news.

And don't forget, if we falsely influence the beliefs of - say - some of the least able 20% of drivers, we can do untold damage to our road safety system.

>> Edited by safespeed on Friday 31st March 16:10

[turbobloke]

vonhosen said:

turbobloke said: Some of the rest is plain daft - take vh's apparent insistence to 'glance' at the speedo in an overtake... I don't. I don't go if it's going to mean breaking the limit. The speedo during the overtake doesn't come into it then, because it's not happening.

Fair enough, but I think we may (again) be posting from a different angle here.

I'm not talking about technical violations of a speed limit being a reason to overtake or not, I'm talking about the situation where you have taken the decision to overtake. In your case you are certain in advance - apparently - that the speed limit will not be exceeded, so my question is, what useful safety purpose does glancing at the speedo do? The answer, though you refuse to give it, is none. The human brain cannot process, rapidly enough to be useful, speed / distance / separation information that's constantly changing and some of which will be an estimate anyway. Taking eyes off the road momentarily cannot be wise under any circumstances as you may miss something critical outside the car that would have been in your peripheral or averted vision but is not any more. To do so purely to look at a speedo is a joke, but we can see you're serious that you think this is safety related not legality related.

If you are a current or an ex trafpol and you only ever overtake within the speed limit, period, you are without a shadow of a doubt the ONLY trafpol I have ever had any interaction with whatsoever who drives in that way. In discussion you are outnumbered, and on the road I have never ever seen your approach in action from drivers of either marked or unmarked cars. This leads me towards another conclusion.



>> Edited by turbobloke on Friday 31st March 16:16

[vonhosen]

turbobloke said:

vonhosen said: turbobloke said: Some of the rest is plain daft - take vh's apparent insistence to 'glance' at the speedo in an overtake... I don't. I don't go if it's going to mean breaking the limit. The speedo during the overtake doesn't come into it then, because it's not happening. Fair enough, but I think we may (again) be posting from a different angle here. I'm not talking about technical violations of a speed limit being a reason to overtake or not, I'm talking about the situation where you have taken the decision to overtake. In your case you are certain in advance - apparently - that the speed limit will not be exceeded, so my question is, what useful safety purpose does glancing at the speedo do? The answer, though you refuse to give it, is none. The human brain cannot process, rapidly enough to be useful, speed / distance / separation information that's constantly changing and some of which will be an estimate anyway. Taking eyes off the road momentarily cannot be wise under any circumstances as you may miss something critical outside the car that would have been in your peripheral or averted vision but is not any more. To do so purely to look at a speedo is a joke, but we can see you're serious that you think this is safety related not legality related. If you are a current or an ex trafpol and you only ever overtake within the speed limit, period, you are without a shadow of a doubt the ONLY trafpol I have ever had any interaction with whatsoever who drives in that way. In discussion you are outnumbered, and on the road I have never ever seen your approach in action from drivers of either marked or unmarked cars. This leads me towards another conclusion.

Where there is an available lawful exemption then the limit does not need to be adhered to in the overtake. Where there isn't an exemption it does. Different circumstances, different approach to & likelyhood of the overtake. I'm not saying there is a safety benefit in looking at the speedo during an overtake. I'm saying that you should in your plan for the overtake, take into account whether you are going to have to break the limit in order to safely complete the overtake. If you are going to have to, then the overtake is not on.


>> Edited by vonhosen on Friday 31st March 16:29

[Davi]

vonhosen said:

turbobloke said: Some of the rest is plain daft - take vh's apparent insistence to 'glance' at the speedo in an overtake... I don't. I don't go if it's going to mean breaking the limit. The speedo during the overtake doesn't come into it then, because it's not happening, the option to overtake is not available. >> Edited by vonhosen on Friday 31st March 16:09

how about when you start an overtake that from the offset would appear to be safe and totally available, then encounter a change in circumstance half way through the overtake - there are 101 things that could happen during an overtake that could leave increasing speed over the limit as the safer option.

As to "advanced" driver training - I'm often left in absolute disbelief at the dismal standards some people pass our standard driving test with. If the government are so keen on cutting emissions, reducing road fatalities and generally improving safety on our roads, rather than further restrict those with ability why dont they remove those who have zero ability, by increasing the currently appaling standard that you can get through a test with.

Then they could also address some of the other issues involved in the test, for example the fact that you are now taught not in the best way to control a car, but the best way for the driver to get through the lessons without causing much wear and tear to the instructors vehicle (no changing down through gears to slow dow, no use of the handbrake ratchet, etc etc etc)

edit - first bit covered while I was typing!!

>> Edited by Davi on Friday 31st March 16:22

[turbobloke]

Davi said:

how about when you start an overtake that from the offset would appear to be safe and totally available, then encounter a change in circumstance half way through the overtake - there are 101 things that could happen during an overtake that could leave increasing speed over the limit as the safer option.

Precisely, this is what I'm referring to. During an overtake I want eyes out the car, certainly not down, and in particular I'm looking for any indication that the car being overtaken is about to do anything that wasn't foreseeable, you hope the other guy has seen you and you can take steps to try and make sure but it's never certain and I like to keep my mind's eye i.e. averted / peripheral vision on noting whether the rear of the car is starting to squat, or the driver's hands are moving on the wheel etc since they're more likely to cause problems than anything...what's happening ahead isn't a problem if the manoeuvre was acceptably safe to start with.

[hanse cronje]

vonhosen said:

turbobloke said: Some of the rest is plain daft - take vh's apparent insistence to 'glance' at the speedo in an overtake... I don't. I don't go if it's going to mean breaking the limit. The speedo during the overtake doesn't come into it then, because it's not happening, the option to overtake is not available. There is no danger in the overtake, if it's not being attempted. >> Edited by vonhosen on Friday 31st March 16:15

so are you seriously saying that:

if you travel at 60 in a 60 and you approach someone who is traveling at 50/55, and you came upon a short straight that allowed an overtake but meant that you'd have to increase speed to say 65, you'd rather stay behind at 50/55 until either a longer straight appeared or for the remainder of the journey to your destination?

sorry this has just come to mind

you are doing 60, you start to pass, you are three quarters past, the idiot, for whatever reason, speeds up now matching your speed, what do you do??

i find it not impossible but difficult to believe that you don't exceed the limit, surely pull out, engage a gear, knowing where you're going to land and then go for it, the longer you're out the more danger you are in, potentially

[BliarOut]

vonhosen said:

turbobloke said: Some of the rest is plain daft - take vh's apparent insistence to 'glance' at the speedo in an overtake... I don't. I don't go if it's going to mean breaking the limit. The speedo during the overtake doesn't come into it then, because it's not happening, the option to overtake is not available. There is no danger in the overtake, if it's not being attempted. >> Edited by vonhosen on Friday 31st March 16:15

I did eight in one go this morning. I have no idea how fast I was going by the time I had completed the manouver. I have a vague idea it could have been double the posted limit or even more. Strangely enough I didn't feel it was prudent to look at the speedo. VH, a Porsche 911 at full chat is a thing of absolute beauty. Shame you weren't there to witness it

[vonhosen]

turbobloke said:

Davi said: how about when you start an overtake that from the offset would appear to be safe and totally available, then encounter a change in circumstance half way through the overtake - there are 101 things that could happen during an overtake that could leave increasing speed over the limit as the safer option. Precisely, this is what I'm referring to. During an overtake I want eyes out the car, certainly not down, and in particular I'm looking for any indication that the car being overtaken is about to do anything that wasn't foreseeable, you hope the other guy has seen you and you can take steps to try and make sure but it's never certain and I like to keep my mind's eye i.e. averted / peripheral vision on noting whether the rear of the car is starting to squat, or the driver's hands are moving on the wheel etc since they're more likely to cause problems than anything...what's happening ahead isn't a problem if the manoeuvre was acceptably safe to start with.

If you go on an overtake and get caught out, you have made a misjudgement (because you shouldn't be going unless it's safe to) & you must do what is safest in the circumstances. But you've still made an error & are accountable for it. You shouldn't be planning to break the speed limit to make the overtake safe though, the answer is then that you shouldn't be doing it, because there is no exemption from the outset.

[mondeoman]

hanse cronje said:

vonhosen said: turbobloke said: i find it not impossible but difficult to believe that you don't exceed the limit, surely pull out, engage a gear, knowing where you're going to land and then go for it, the longer you're out the more danger you are in, potentially

I don't believe it either.

[safespeed]

BliarOut said:

I did eight in one go this morning. I have no idea how fast I was going by the time I had completed the manouver. I have a vague idea it could have been double the posted limit or even more. Strangely enough I didn't feel it was prudent to look at the speedo. [...]

Sorry mate but with that sort of speed differential you were at VERY considerable risk from (for example) target #7 pulling out to overtake target #8.

[BliarOut]

safespeed said:

BliarOut said: I did eight in one go this morning. I have no idea how fast I was going by the time I had completed the manouver. I have a vague idea it could have been double the posted limit or even more. Strangely enough I didn't feel it was prudent to look at the speedo. [...] Sorry mate but with that sort of speed differential you were at VERY considerable risk from (for example) target #7 pulling out to overtake target #8.

And that's why I wasn't looking at the speedo, it would have been dangerous

[turbobloke]

vonhosen said:

If you go on an overtake and get caught out, you have made a misjudgement (because you shouldn't be going unless it's safe to)

Oh vh, you are human aren't you, not a robot that gets programmed each day before driving and/or posting on PH? Sometimes, for a human, you key in the most trite drivel imaginable.

So there we are, overtaking. All the usual and unusual preparatory actions and information gathering done and dusted. Then, suddenly, Mister IdontlikebeingovertakenbutnevergiveyouanywarninguntilIsuddenlyacceleratewhenyouarelevelwithme starts to hit the gas take away your space.

Of course, in the vonhosen world, you were able to tap into the collective consciousness of the universe, or avail yourself of other extra-sensory telepathic methods, to know the guy is a nutter and turn round at the next available (and yes vh, legal) U-turn option to get away from their next accident while you choose another route.

Or, in fact, they unpredictably and unforeseeably put you at risk and you need to spot it asafp by NOT looking at your fg speedo.
If this is something that you take into account in deciding not to goferit, vh, then not only do you never exceed the posted limit when overtaking, but you NEVER OVERTAKE.

It simply isn't predictable, sorry to collapse your world view (yet again).

>> Edited by turbobloke on Friday 31st March 16:55

[vonhosen]

hanse cronje said:

vonhosen said: turbobloke said: Some of the rest is plain daft - take vh's apparent insistence to 'glance' at the speedo in an overtake... I don't. I don't go if it's going to mean breaking the limit. The speedo during the overtake doesn't come into it then, because it's not happening, the option to overtake is not available. There is no danger in the overtake, if it's not being attempted. so are you seriously saying that: if you travel at 60 in a 60 and you approach someone who is traveling at 50/55, and you came upon a short straight that allowed an overtake but meant that you'd have to increase speed to say 65, you'd rather stay behind at 50/55 until either a longer straight appeared or for the remainder of the journey to your destination?

You've got it. If they are that close to the limit they are making reasonable progress within it. That'll do.

hanse cronje said:

sorry this has just come to mind you are doing 60, you start to pass, you are three quarters past, the idiot, for whatever reason, speeds up now matching your speed, what do you do?? i find it not impossible but difficult to believe that you don't exceed the limit, surely pull out, engage a gear, knowing where you're going to land and then go for it, the longer you're out the more danger you are in, potentially

I'm not going to get invloved in a duel, I'll drop off & pull in behind. Most cars can lose speed quicker than they can gain it.