SSS for Von - it's why your wrong!
Discussion
Hi all and especially Vonhosen,
I've been fairly fascinated to see Von's arguments about the importance of the speed limit over the last few months. I've enjoyed the discussions too. Thanks.
It may be that the view here in the post will finally sort things out and prove the fundamental limitation of the speed limit system as a risk management tool.
See the article at: www.safespeed.org.uk/sss.html
It presents and explains the following 'risk equation' which was proposed by Stephen Haley.
Stephen is warning us that risk on the road is mainly a function of three parameters working together. If there's more speed there's more risk. If there's more 'surprise' there's more risk and if there's more space there's less risk. In practice, of course, all three are continuously controlled by each individual driver.
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've been fairly fascinated to see Von's arguments about the importance of the speed limit over the last few months. I've enjoyed the discussions too. Thanks.
It may be that the view here in the post will finally sort things out and prove the fundamental limitation of the speed limit system as a risk management tool.
See the article at: www.safespeed.org.uk/sss.html
It presents and explains the following 'risk equation' which was proposed by Stephen Haley.
Stephen is warning us that risk on the road is mainly a function of three parameters working together. If there's more speed there's more risk. If there's more 'surprise' there's more risk and if there's more space there's less risk. In practice, of course, all three are continuously controlled by each individual driver.
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.
To be honest Paul I don't think he gives a rolling donut, it's against the law to speed and that's that. every good argument I have read in the last 5 months ends up at that simple but unshakable truth. Keep up the good work but from what I've seen, the truth is out there, many people know it, the media are saying it but the government do not care, they have bigger fish to fry.
Yes. One thing that I've never seen addressed, and I don't know why, is the concept of traffic density ; that if you reduce the speed from 60 to 40 you increase the traffic density by 50%.
The consequence of this is most obvious in roads littered with dangerous and difficult junctions ; the traffic moves more slowly but there are fewer opportunities to make the turn.
The consequence of this is most obvious in roads littered with dangerous and difficult junctions ; the traffic moves more slowly but there are fewer opportunities to make the turn.
apache said:
To be honest Paul I don't think he gives a rolling donut, it's against the law to speed and that's that. every good argument I have read in the last 5 months ends up at that simple but unshakable truth. Keep up the good work but from what I've seen, the truth is out there, many people know it, the media are saying it but the government do not care, they have bigger fish to fry.
Sad but true.
IMHO VH seems like others we have had on here - very blinkered and unwilling to consider anything which is contrary to either his training or the party line. I'm just glad there are plenty of cops still around who don't think like that, and do still have open minds about issues.
autismuk said:
Yes. One thing that I've never seen addressed, and I don't know why, is the concept of traffic density ; that if you reduce the speed from 60 to 40 you increase the traffic density by 50%.
The consequence of this is most obvious in roads littered with dangerous and difficult junctions ; the traffic moves more slowly but there are fewer opportunities to make the turn.
The consequence of this is most obvious in roads littered with dangerous and difficult junctions ; the traffic moves more slowly but there are fewer opportunities to make the turn.
There's an Israeli (scientific) paper that explores the issue, calculates that fewer 'encounters' take place when traffic is moving faster, and suggests that this might be the reason that crashes don't rise with speed 'as expected'. It's not available on the net.
apache said:
To be honest Paul I don't think he gives a rolling donut...
I think we'll break through sooner or later because he understands driving and cares about it. But we have to break through a couple of false assumptions that have been accepted for years and fitted into the framework of understanding.
Either that or he's working for the government and here to check out our arguments.
I have honestly now settled on the fact that this is an argument that cannot be won with facts.
Its not even about safety anymore
Its about generating revenue without a headline tax increase with some sort of wooly thinking justification thrown into the mix.
The motorist has no option but to use their cars and on that basis you really can wring them until they are dry. See that article the other week about people being willing to pay double for their fuel. You could almost hear the hand rubbing in Whitehall.
It is, for want of a better word, odious.
Its not even about safety anymore
Its about generating revenue without a headline tax increase with some sort of wooly thinking justification thrown into the mix.
The motorist has no option but to use their cars and on that basis you really can wring them until they are dry. See that article the other week about people being willing to pay double for their fuel. You could almost hear the hand rubbing in Whitehall.
It is, for want of a better word, odious.
Matt, I wouldn't say it's about revenue generation so much as a self sustaining method of appearing to do something however pointless.
Let's face it, making the test harder, retraining, re-engineering dangerous roads and putting trafpol back on the road is a nobrainer against this is it?
Let's face it, making the test harder, retraining, re-engineering dangerous roads and putting trafpol back on the road is a nobrainer against this is it?
True enough.
Its the way the entire issue is wielded like a political plaything that sticks in my throat.
Trouble is making the roads safer in the proper sustainable way is ultimately a cost and a large one and I am guessing that that is another thing they will have to pay for and raise taxes accordingly.
I have often thought that a policy or campaign of saying 'British Drivers, well done, we have the safest road system in Europe, lets keep it that way' would be a far less patronising and much nicer all round way of doing things...
Its the way the entire issue is wielded like a political plaything that sticks in my throat.
Trouble is making the roads safer in the proper sustainable way is ultimately a cost and a large one and I am guessing that that is another thing they will have to pay for and raise taxes accordingly.
I have often thought that a policy or campaign of saying 'British Drivers, well done, we have the safest road system in Europe, lets keep it that way' would be a far less patronising and much nicer all round way of doing things...
What makes me angry however is the political brainwashing done by the partnerships, these are the real sickos in all of this, especially when you see them in primary schools encouraging the kids to enter competitions to draw an anti speeding poster. No mention of the green cross code or any other safety benefit, just grow up hating the bad old motorist. How they sleep at night............
I think there are lots of vested interests in the anti-speed and anti-car crusades. The labour government haven't made any great secret of their wish to reduce access to private transport. The measures that they have introduced are under the guise of improving road safety and pollution but the justification looks very flimsy and I think it's just an excuse to penalise and restrict drivers with relatively little political cost. No doubt some people sincerely think they're improving road safety by concentrating on speed enforcement. Personally I think they've been mislead though.
Apart from the 'taxation' issue - and oh boy do we pay through the nose for not a lot in net return after admin - the whole issue of speeding and safety is an element of the growth of the nanny state in the last decade together with the Government's obsession with micro-managing peoples' lives. Wherever you look in our social structure its the same. Administering those policies and political dogma is a civil service and bureaucracy intent on 'goldplating' the system and turning every aspect into a self serving growth area. For example look at Health and Safety. What started out as perfectly reasonable and proper legislation to curb dangerous practises in the workplace now intrudes evrywhere with a massive, very powerful, executive far exceeding the original intent. And so it is wherever one looks.
However recent serious failings both in policy and administration are leading to public disquiet. We may be seeing the beginning of political and social change so we should keep up the pressure and the lobbying for sensible and balanced approach to speeding and safety on the roads. We all know the arguements - 20 mph in a congested urban environment may be too high in some circs. Speeds significantly higher than the NSL can be fine in the right conditions and at the right time. It is about judgement and appropriateness. It is time for individual responsibilities to be re-asserted and 'rights' to be earned.
That's my rant for today.
However recent serious failings both in policy and administration are leading to public disquiet. We may be seeing the beginning of political and social change so we should keep up the pressure and the lobbying for sensible and balanced approach to speeding and safety on the roads. We all know the arguements - 20 mph in a congested urban environment may be too high in some circs. Speeds significantly higher than the NSL can be fine in the right conditions and at the right time. It is about judgement and appropriateness. It is time for individual responsibilities to be re-asserted and 'rights' to be earned.
That's my rant for today.
jeff miles said:
We all know the arguements - 20 mph in a congested urban environment may be too high in some circs. Speeds significantly higher than the NSL can be fine in the right conditions and at the right time. It is about judgement and appropriateness.
Something this important is arguably far too important to be trusted to any rigid enforcement/control mechanism. But no doubt there are those that believe that it is far too important to be trusted to individuals. Personally I think that we should have as little government intervention (taxation, regulation etc) as possible, but the control freaks in power appear to take the opposite view. Sadly, the people who want power and control tend to be the ones who end up in power and control.
It get even worse with the sponsored crocodile walk. 
Our youngest rogues came home with a sponsorship form.. for record braking attempt to have largest number of folk on organised walk at one time.
Fine.. you may think... ist organised by BRAKE who try to brainwash... Our rogues also came home with a detention letter und summons to Mad Doc und self to see teacher ... because the kittens were "cheeky" in class.
Apparently the rogues reminded the teacher of need to be highly visible und suggested a "no uniform und very bright gear for walk... und reminded of need for one in front to have a white torch und one at rear to have a red light und that the teachers should be in fluorescent vests on outside... because "Mama say ist in the Highway Code!"
It seem they also say they do enough fell walking with us without being part of this .. und they were a bit sassy about all funds raised going to victims of naughty drivers as they told the teacher that the insurance company und courts pay out.. because "Mama received compo from the car crash before they were born"
ops: "und perhaps this money should go to educating people und funding courses instead ... as Mama und Papa both say people need to learn to drive properly - und that from what they have seen und observed they think we are right!" ops:
It did not perhaps help that they told the teacher that she should use her mirrors und give an over shoulder look a bit more often when she reverses
We shall tell their teacher that we are bringing them up the right way as in able to think for themselves
Our youngest rogues came home with a sponsorship form.. for record braking attempt to have largest number of folk on organised walk at one time. Fine.. you may think... ist organised by BRAKE who try to brainwash... Our rogues also came home with a detention letter und summons to Mad Doc und self to see teacher ... because the kittens were "cheeky" in class.
Apparently the rogues reminded the teacher of need to be highly visible und suggested a "no uniform und very bright gear for walk... und reminded of need for one in front to have a white torch und one at rear to have a red light und that the teachers should be in fluorescent vests on outside... because "Mama say ist in the Highway Code!"
It seem they also say they do enough fell walking with us without being part of this .. und they were a bit sassy about all funds raised going to victims of naughty drivers as they told the teacher that the insurance company und courts pay out.. because "Mama received compo from the car crash before they were born"
ops: "und perhaps this money should go to educating people und funding courses instead ... as Mama und Papa both say people need to learn to drive properly - und that from what they have seen und observed they think we are right!" ops: It did not perhaps help that they told the teacher that she should use her mirrors und give an over shoulder look a bit more often when she reverses
We shall tell their teacher that we are bringing them up the right way as in able to think for themselves
apache said:
Getting back to the title of the thread, 'Former Trafpol officer says: drive faster or else' he's a retired Traffic Officer, presumably knows his onions, Are you Traffic VH?
vonhosen said:
No, but I teach them to drive.
MoJocvh said:
Really, what force or in what region do you "teach"
A simple reply to my query would have gone some way to banishing the 'hosen effect.
VH's silence speaks volumes. He is the SPTL equivelent of RAFdug (xcept RAFd had an amount of street)
MoJo
hanse cronje said:
safespeed said:
apache said:
To be honest Paul I don't think he gives a rolling donut...
I think we'll break through sooner or later because he understands driving and cares about it. But we have to break through a couple of false assumptions that have been accepted for years and fitted into the framework of understanding.
Either that or he's working for the government and here to check out our arguments.
i think he does actually but the position he holds is such that he can't be seen to be agreeing with us
if he didn't why come on hear with the number of posts he puts in to be berated like he is
perhaps when he leaves and sets up a driving consultancy his true colours will shine through
I'd have to be desperate to do that, I have no ineterest in doing such a thing. If things go to plan I will be doing a bit of instruction when I retire but not driving.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff