Discussion
I have been reading PH 'plod etc' for a few months now, and find myself swayed by arguments first from the BIB, recently 318, but others before, Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, body bag stories. I think of these people as BIB, whether they are or not.
Then I sway the other way listening to tales of the nanny state and how 'speed doesn't kill', and scameras used as taxation devices, and I believe most of them. All have a valid point. I think of these people as the libertarians.
Currently I was swayed toward the libertarians, especially as I was caught by a scamera van which did as much as it could to disguse itself and placed itself in a prime revenue gathering position rather than any attempt to stop accidents. So for this and other reasons I naturally side myself with the second group while having respect for the first.
BUT the thing that makes me cringe when I read one of the libertarians prose, is that 'speed doesn't kill', when of course it is a major factor in almost every accident, maybe not the one that caused the accident, but certainly one that will have decided whether you walk away or not. If you are being scraped off the road by BIB, chances are that driving slower would have saved you and there is very little argument that has persuaded me differently over my time on PH.
Therefore I am left with having to find other reasons to justify speeding. No matter how many times I think about this it always ends up leaving me with the same inevitable dark question. How many deaths on the road am I willing to tolerate before I change the way I drive.
I think this is the actual question that needs most debate. I even believe that half the people who spout on about speed doesn't kill don't believe what they are saying, it just guides them away from the actual real 100% question.
Maybe I'm having a bad day, but I when I ask myself this question deep down, I think probably more than one but less than ten, on the understanding its nobody I know.
And afterward the answer makes me feel ill.
Then I sway the other way listening to tales of the nanny state and how 'speed doesn't kill', and scameras used as taxation devices, and I believe most of them. All have a valid point. I think of these people as the libertarians.
Currently I was swayed toward the libertarians, especially as I was caught by a scamera van which did as much as it could to disguse itself and placed itself in a prime revenue gathering position rather than any attempt to stop accidents. So for this and other reasons I naturally side myself with the second group while having respect for the first.
BUT the thing that makes me cringe when I read one of the libertarians prose, is that 'speed doesn't kill', when of course it is a major factor in almost every accident, maybe not the one that caused the accident, but certainly one that will have decided whether you walk away or not. If you are being scraped off the road by BIB, chances are that driving slower would have saved you and there is very little argument that has persuaded me differently over my time on PH.
Therefore I am left with having to find other reasons to justify speeding. No matter how many times I think about this it always ends up leaving me with the same inevitable dark question. How many deaths on the road am I willing to tolerate before I change the way I drive.
I think this is the actual question that needs most debate. I even believe that half the people who spout on about speed doesn't kill don't believe what they are saying, it just guides them away from the actual real 100% question.
Maybe I'm having a bad day, but I when I ask myself this question deep down, I think probably more than one but less than ten, on the understanding its nobody I know.
And afterward the answer makes me feel ill.
I don't blame petrol Ted for closing my fake plod thread but I'm getting the horrible feeling that I'm the only one who doesn't know who it is. ;-(
I don't accept speeding is a big factor in crashes. I'm safer on the motorway than anywhere else and I could be doing 3 times the speed I would in town!
My Rospa/IAM training has had more of a positive effect on my driving than Camera's have.
Hazards cause crashes, not speed.
>> Edited by toad_oftoadhall on Monday 3rd November 16:08
I don't accept speeding is a big factor in crashes. I'm safer on the motorway than anywhere else and I could be doing 3 times the speed I would in town!
My Rospa/IAM training has had more of a positive effect on my driving than Camera's have.
Hazards cause crashes, not speed.
>> Edited by toad_oftoadhall on Monday 3rd November 16:08
No it isn't. It's the usual "Emote first, think afterwards" claptrap pushed by the Scamera Partnerships and their ilk. *Nobody* wants to see people killed on the roads. It just happens that there are some of us who simply do not believe that speed cameras work, other than in a very limited sense. The figures show that KSI have *risen* since the introduction of the cameras, along with a concomitant, and drastic, reduction in respect for the BiB. It's blindingly obvious that the Government has discovered a new source of revenue which they can push on people because "it's for their own good". No, not all cameras are like that, but a large number of them certainly are. And it only takes one for the entire programme to be discredited. And talking of discredited, could someone shut that tw*t Brunstrom up?
I for one would like to see much harder driving tests, regularly repeated, retests mandated for all offences resulting in a ban, and *lots* more coppers watching for dangerous and without due care driving.
Let's skill up the driving ability of the country, rather than trying (and failing) to deskill the driving task to the point where the average numpty can manage it. And the fact that there are people with licenses like those in "Britains Worst Drivers" is evidnece enough that the skill levels are dismally low.
I for one would like to see much harder driving tests, regularly repeated, retests mandated for all offences resulting in a ban, and *lots* more coppers watching for dangerous and without due care driving.
Let's skill up the driving ability of the country, rather than trying (and failing) to deskill the driving task to the point where the average numpty can manage it. And the fact that there are people with licenses like those in "Britains Worst Drivers" is evidnece enough that the skill levels are dismally low.
"I don't accept speeding is a big factor in crashes. I'm safer on the motorway than anywhere else and I could be doing 3 times the speed I would in town!
Hazards cause crashes, not speed."
Toad - you've completely missed the central and very valid point, which is that speed may not be the cause, but it does mean that if the accident happens, the consequences are more serious at higher speeds, and that more serious damage/injuries can and do result. I'm not a fan of any of this camera nonsense. However, I have been involved in a heavy accident which I was lucky to walk away from (after 8 weeks in hospital). It does make you think. Finally, Julian's final question is the key here....and I'm ashamed to say that despite my personal experiences, I would give a similar answer. Good topic, Julian. J.
Hazards cause crashes, not speed."
Toad - you've completely missed the central and very valid point, which is that speed may not be the cause, but it does mean that if the accident happens, the consequences are more serious at higher speeds, and that more serious damage/injuries can and do result. I'm not a fan of any of this camera nonsense. However, I have been involved in a heavy accident which I was lucky to walk away from (after 8 weeks in hospital). It does make you think. Finally, Julian's final question is the key here....and I'm ashamed to say that despite my personal experiences, I would give a similar answer. Good topic, Julian. J.
tis a good post there
i am split too, speed itself does determine whether or not you will walk away from an accident. I'm of the opinion that speed itself is dangerous to people who aren't confident with it, the problem is that 'driving talent' isn't quantifiable and isn't something you can use in your defence in court.
speed mixed with stupidty or poor driving is a recipe for disaster. thats when speed kills. speed with a confident alert intelligent driver poses far less of a threat.
at the end of the day, we don't like being told to slow down. i know i don't. i adhere to all 30 and 40 limits, always concentrate on the road, know everything about cars mechanically, i've raced them, rallied them blah blah.. and have driven every type imaginable - but a court will not differentiate me from the reckless local boy racer from some run down estate with no experience whatsoever.
there is no discretion, the law is the law and there's nowt we can do... so go out, use ur eyes and be lucky!
i am split too, speed itself does determine whether or not you will walk away from an accident. I'm of the opinion that speed itself is dangerous to people who aren't confident with it, the problem is that 'driving talent' isn't quantifiable and isn't something you can use in your defence in court.
speed mixed with stupidty or poor driving is a recipe for disaster. thats when speed kills. speed with a confident alert intelligent driver poses far less of a threat.
at the end of the day, we don't like being told to slow down. i know i don't. i adhere to all 30 and 40 limits, always concentrate on the road, know everything about cars mechanically, i've raced them, rallied them blah blah.. and have driven every type imaginable - but a court will not differentiate me from the reckless local boy racer from some run down estate with no experience whatsoever.
there is no discretion, the law is the law and there's nowt we can do... so go out, use ur eyes and be lucky!
The weight of your vehicle is far more likely be the contributing factor to your survival in an accident, than being at the speed limit.
Simple physics, read up on NCAP if you don't believe me.
Young people are the majority of all road deaths (I do beleive), they also rarely drive large cars.
Teach people not to become a statistic, don't penalise the majority because it rakes lots of cash in.
Simple physics, read up on NCAP if you don't believe me.
Young people are the majority of all road deaths (I do beleive), they also rarely drive large cars.
Teach people not to become a statistic, don't penalise the majority because it rakes lots of cash in.
My biggest concern over the speed kills mantra is the amount of time money and effort being put into it compared with other causes of death.
There are 64 people a week approximately killed in transport related accidents (not just speed related), but during the summer, there were 900 people a week being killed by the heatwave. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3184187.stm)
Or look at the NSO analysis of deaths for 2002
www.nationalstatistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D6879.xls
Almost 140,000 deaths from cancers of various types, and yet the government is more than happy to allow the sale of tobacco products (oh yes, they're heavily taxed aren't they).
It's just totally out of proportion
There are 64 people a week approximately killed in transport related accidents (not just speed related), but during the summer, there were 900 people a week being killed by the heatwave. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3184187.stm)
Or look at the NSO analysis of deaths for 2002
www.nationalstatistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D6879.xls
Almost 140,000 deaths from cancers of various types, and yet the government is more than happy to allow the sale of tobacco products (oh yes, they're heavily taxed aren't they).
It's just totally out of proportion
I race cars.
I win races.
I've hit 200mph on a French motorway.
I go over 150mph at least once a week in this country on the road.
And I've never had a crash (outside of a race meeting)... touch wood, touch wood, touch wood, touch wood.
The really odd thing is that I've been in a couple very 'close' heart-stopping moments, but both of these have situations where when I was travelling under the posted speed limit. And it was all due to a lack of my concentration.
Once, I was travelling at a 'safe' 25 mph behind a lorry and my mind wandered away as there was nothing to do. For some idiotic reason, I turned my body around 180° to reach for my Road Angel of off the back seats and as I turned around back around to face forward, the lorry was stationary in front of me... Emergency stop!!! You couldn't have fit a sheet of paper between myself and the lorry, I was THAT close.
The other time I was cruising along behind a Micra I think and it was a beautiful summers day. Again, going so slowly, my mind was wandering around and I then caught the eye of a partially clothed, good-looking girl walking along the side of the road, she smiled, I smiled back, almost crashed into the Micra who had stopped at a Zebra crossing.
You may find it hard to believe but these have been the only two times in my life when I've almost had an accident, and both were due to my brain getting bored from going slowly and I lost my concentration. So I now do my best to keep my brain active whilst driving.
Note: I NEVER speed in 30 or 40 zones, but after that I drive at what I think is the appropriate level for the road conditions/potential hazards.
I just wish there was a way for the police to catch people who aren’t paying any attention. It may sound stupid, but I’d like to see traps set up on the road similar to ones I’ve seen in Britain’s worst driver: You’ll be driving along a street and suddenly a cardboard child comes out from behind a car, if you hit the cardboard child, the camera takes a photo of you… sadly there would have to be an endless supply of cardboard cut-outs as I’m sure they’ll get destroyed pretty quickly.
In conclusion I think that the ‘think of the children’ brigade is mainly made up of drivers who lack confidence and skill when driving and don’t understand how people like me could possibly control a vehicle above 70mph. Or they’re just jealous of us Phers in our sports cars.
EDIT: Sorry to the BiBs for speeding, but all I want is for one of you guys to stop me and give me a good telling off, rather than a camera. You may be surprised to hear this, but I want more Trafpols on the road, at least 3 or 4 times the amount - as long as those pesky scameras go away.
Infact I'm going to write to my MP on this Trafpol subject, not that it'll do a fat lot of good.
>> Edited by marvelharvey on Monday 3rd November 17:12
I win races.
I've hit 200mph on a French motorway.
I go over 150mph at least once a week in this country on the road.
And I've never had a crash (outside of a race meeting)... touch wood, touch wood, touch wood, touch wood.
The really odd thing is that I've been in a couple very 'close' heart-stopping moments, but both of these have situations where when I was travelling under the posted speed limit. And it was all due to a lack of my concentration.
Once, I was travelling at a 'safe' 25 mph behind a lorry and my mind wandered away as there was nothing to do. For some idiotic reason, I turned my body around 180° to reach for my Road Angel of off the back seats and as I turned around back around to face forward, the lorry was stationary in front of me... Emergency stop!!! You couldn't have fit a sheet of paper between myself and the lorry, I was THAT close.
The other time I was cruising along behind a Micra I think and it was a beautiful summers day. Again, going so slowly, my mind was wandering around and I then caught the eye of a partially clothed, good-looking girl walking along the side of the road, she smiled, I smiled back, almost crashed into the Micra who had stopped at a Zebra crossing.
You may find it hard to believe but these have been the only two times in my life when I've almost had an accident, and both were due to my brain getting bored from going slowly and I lost my concentration. So I now do my best to keep my brain active whilst driving.
Note: I NEVER speed in 30 or 40 zones, but after that I drive at what I think is the appropriate level for the road conditions/potential hazards.
I just wish there was a way for the police to catch people who aren’t paying any attention. It may sound stupid, but I’d like to see traps set up on the road similar to ones I’ve seen in Britain’s worst driver: You’ll be driving along a street and suddenly a cardboard child comes out from behind a car, if you hit the cardboard child, the camera takes a photo of you… sadly there would have to be an endless supply of cardboard cut-outs as I’m sure they’ll get destroyed pretty quickly.
In conclusion I think that the ‘think of the children’ brigade is mainly made up of drivers who lack confidence and skill when driving and don’t understand how people like me could possibly control a vehicle above 70mph. Or they’re just jealous of us Phers in our sports cars.
EDIT: Sorry to the BiBs for speeding, but all I want is for one of you guys to stop me and give me a good telling off, rather than a camera. You may be surprised to hear this, but I want more Trafpols on the road, at least 3 or 4 times the amount - as long as those pesky scameras go away.
Infact I'm going to write to my MP on this Trafpol subject, not that it'll do a fat lot of good.
>> Edited by marvelharvey on Monday 3rd November 17:12
Weight Class - Statistics show that if two vehicles with the same NHTSA full frontal rating crash into each other head on, but one vehicle weighs twice as much as the other, the occupants of the lighter one (2000 lbs / 909 kgs) are eight times more likely to be killed than the occupants of the heavier vehicle (4000 lbs / 1818 kgs). However, vehicle weight offers no safety advantage or disadvantage in single-vehicle crashes.
Driving requires human skill. Lapses result in accidents, some of which are fatal. Compared to some other forms of human activity the fatality rates are low, but it would be better if they were lower still.
To reduce the number of accidents, either we increase the skill of the people doing it or we reduce the level of skill required. At present we see the latter being pushed hard, but only via reducing/enforcing speed limits, not by improving road layouts, separating types of road users, eliminating hazards, and the like. And nothing at all on increasing skill levels through encouraging (mandating?) advanced/defensive driving.
So of the options available for reducing accidents, just one is being used -- and it just happens to be the one that is "self-financing". And then we're told it's the only option available and we should all support it.
But while skill is still required, lapses will continue because we're human. This will provide the government with all the excuse it needs to continue reducing speed limits.
Sadly, this actively reduces the desire of drivers to increase their skills, thus further contributing to the lapses. What was seen -- by some at least -- as a skill to be nurtured and developed, is now a pointless lost art because driving is so disparaged and the opportunities to drive well so infrequent.
>> Edited by Peter Ward on Monday 3rd November 17:36
To reduce the number of accidents, either we increase the skill of the people doing it or we reduce the level of skill required. At present we see the latter being pushed hard, but only via reducing/enforcing speed limits, not by improving road layouts, separating types of road users, eliminating hazards, and the like. And nothing at all on increasing skill levels through encouraging (mandating?) advanced/defensive driving.
So of the options available for reducing accidents, just one is being used -- and it just happens to be the one that is "self-financing". And then we're told it's the only option available and we should all support it.
But while skill is still required, lapses will continue because we're human. This will provide the government with all the excuse it needs to continue reducing speed limits.
Sadly, this actively reduces the desire of drivers to increase their skills, thus further contributing to the lapses. What was seen -- by some at least -- as a skill to be nurtured and developed, is now a pointless lost art because driving is so disparaged and the opportunities to drive well so infrequent.
>> Edited by Peter Ward on Monday 3rd November 17:36
The trouble isn't the "speed kills" message, although it's flawed, but rather the zealots running the scamera partnerships being blinkered to EVERY OTHER cause of accidents.
What is being done to address these?
Lack of pedestrian education
Bad road layout
Poor road repair
Inadequate signage
Some of the roads round here are a disgrace - the solution? Don't bother repairing them, just label it a blackspot, put up a scamera and watch the cash roll in.
If the road safety campaign was even handed in dealing with ALL areas of safety then I doubt people would have a problem, but the zealous obsession with speed and scameras, complete unaccountability (look at the M4 camera fiasco), secrecy, manipulation of figures and the outright LIES coming from the partnerships (one thrid...) is alienating the motoring public, not to mention causing damage to the relationship we have with the police, and it's going to take a lot to win back our trust.
What is being done to address these?
Lack of pedestrian education
Bad road layout
Poor road repair
Inadequate signage
Some of the roads round here are a disgrace - the solution? Don't bother repairing them, just label it a blackspot, put up a scamera and watch the cash roll in.
If the road safety campaign was even handed in dealing with ALL areas of safety then I doubt people would have a problem, but the zealous obsession with speed and scameras, complete unaccountability (look at the M4 camera fiasco), secrecy, manipulation of figures and the outright LIES coming from the partnerships (one thrid...) is alienating the motoring public, not to mention causing damage to the relationship we have with the police, and it's going to take a lot to win back our trust.
Its the mass of the vehicle at X speed that determines if youre likely to walk away or not.
For instance, can anyone tell me how much potential energy a 38 tonner has at 25mph?
Id wager its easily as much as say a nova doing double that speed.
Its NOT all about speed. Theres far more to this whole argument than that.
And this is why im so dead set against the current speed kills nonsense.
Speed is a factor in 100% of accidents, but whats its true contribution towards the **formation** of an accident?
No one really knows the answer to this. Certainly the DFT have zero clues as even they "guesstimate" the one third figure.
I dont for one millisecond believe its even close to their figures.
Others have pointed out the deaths from fags. Thats a valid point. As theyve also correctly said, this rotten government rake a nice tax take from death and misery, so whys it in their interests to stop it?
The same arguments also apply to speed kills. Its a cash cow with sweet f/a to do with saving lives.
I wont touch it with a barge pole.
For instance, can anyone tell me how much potential energy a 38 tonner has at 25mph?
Id wager its easily as much as say a nova doing double that speed.
Its NOT all about speed. Theres far more to this whole argument than that.
And this is why im so dead set against the current speed kills nonsense.
Speed is a factor in 100% of accidents, but whats its true contribution towards the **formation** of an accident?
No one really knows the answer to this. Certainly the DFT have zero clues as even they "guesstimate" the one third figure.
I dont for one millisecond believe its even close to their figures.
Others have pointed out the deaths from fags. Thats a valid point. As theyve also correctly said, this rotten government rake a nice tax take from death and misery, so whys it in their interests to stop it?
The same arguments also apply to speed kills. Its a cash cow with sweet f/a to do with saving lives.
I wont touch it with a barge pole.
Peter Ward said:
Driving requires human skill. Lapses result in accidents, some of which are fatal. Compared to some other forms of human activity the fatality rates are low, but it would be better if they were lower still.
To reduce the number of accidents, either we increase the skill of the people doing it or we reduce the level of skill required. At present we see the latter being pushed hard, but only via reducing/enforcing speed limits, not by improving road layouts, separating types of road users, eliminating hazards, and the like. And nothing at all on increasing skill levels through encouraging (mandating?) advanced/defensive driving.
So of the options available for reducing accidents, just one is being used -- and it just happens to be the one that is "self-financing". And then we're told it's the only option available and we should all support it.
But while skill is still required, lapses will continue because we're human. This will provide the government with all the excuse it needs to continue reducing speed limits.
Sadly, this actively reduces the desire of drivers to increase their skills, thus further contributing to the lapses. What was seen -- by some at least -- as a skill to be nurtured and developed, is now a pointless lost art because driving is so disparaged and the opportunities to drive well so infrequent.
>> Edited by Peter Ward on Monday 3rd November 17:36
Superbly put Peter, unfortunately this fine example of the logic behind the average PHers disquiet will be met with "It's your own fault if you get caught, nobody forces you to exceed the limits, so don't come on here crying about it"
It's enough to make you weep
Peter Ward said:
To reduce the number of accidents, either we increase the skill of the people doing it or we reduce the level of skill required. At present we see the latter being pushed hard, but only via reducing/enforcing speed limits, not by improving road layouts, separating types of road users, eliminating hazards, and the like. And nothing at all on increasing skill levels through encouraging (mandating?) advanced/defensive driving.
So of the options available for reducing accidents, just one is being used -- and it just happens to be the one that is "self-financing". And then we're told it's the only option available and we should all support it.
Driving tests are already self financing and, retests could be charged for, and so made self financing, surely? No doubt people would bitch but, more or less than they do about cameras?
I consider myself a safe driver, I wouldn't go as far as to say good cos I do too many "bad" things but I make sure that I do them in the right places (away from everyone else!), and I would be in favour of regular retests. Allowing for a few bad habits of course, just picking up the dangerous ones.
But, alas, charging people for their motoring up front like this would doubtless cause serious agrovation and I'm sure no governments would have the balls for it. Much better to use stealth taxes...
[quote=marvelharvey]
I just wish there was a way for the police to catch people who aren’t paying any attention.
There is. It's called the Gatso camera! Most cameras are now yellow and highly visible. As much as I hate them all, I can't help thinking of them as numpty catchers, far more likely to catch drivers going along in their own little dream world than a faster but more observant driver. It shouldn't be that difficult for people to stop getting caught by visible Gatsos but then I guess there are a lot of numpties out there!
Hidden or disguised scamera vans and are another matter entirely - don't get me started...
I just wish there was a way for the police to catch people who aren’t paying any attention.
There is. It's called the Gatso camera! Most cameras are now yellow and highly visible. As much as I hate them all, I can't help thinking of them as numpty catchers, far more likely to catch drivers going along in their own little dream world than a faster but more observant driver. It shouldn't be that difficult for people to stop getting caught by visible Gatsos but then I guess there are a lot of numpties out there!
Hidden or disguised scamera vans and are another matter entirely - don't get me started...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff