Lower speed equals less time to react?

[safespeed]

I have put up a new Safe Speed page that explores the bizarre proposition that lower speed limits and higher levels of enforcement might turn out to deliver less time for drivers to react.

www.safespeed.org.uk/problem2.html

Comments welcome as ever.

If possible, comments are best placed in the Safe Speed forum using the links provided on the page. This has the advantage that visitors to the web site will be able to read the comments.

Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk

[JMGS4]

Paul
Firstly I believe that th ADAC has done a very large report on this..I'll try to track it down
Second, speaking only on my experience and others who are not "hindered" by ridiculously slow limits. I find that fast driving on a fast road keeps one very "on the mark" and thus safer. The constant change in rythm, engine nois, gearchanges, etc keeps one sharp. I drive 100000km/Year in Germany, mostly at speeds well in excess of 200kph, where possible, and my attention is then very sharp with long vision ahead, watching the traffic 3kms ahead at least, but still using the peripheral vision for the numpty changing lanes without indicating.
Being forced to drive at ridiculously slow motorway speeds as in Sweden (90kph on empty roads) or 112kph in GB (also partly on empty roads, M6 northend) I find that my attention can wander, thus INCREASING accident possibility. I have to concentrate harder as the driving is then boringly slow, motor noise is always the same, overtaking is just a pull across lanes, instead of an adrenalin rush...etc ....etc......

[kevinday]

Well said JMGS4, and Paul. At lower speeds your attention is more likely to wander thus delaying the identification of the problem, thus shortening reaction time.

This is common sense to most of us here, but out there in the government brain-washed numptydom I doubt if they can understand the concept at all.

[PetrolTed]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment it's an argument that stands up with motorists who take an interest in their driving but I'm sure there are plenty of numpties who would drive at 100mph given the chance but have little appreciatation for the types of hazards that they need to look out for.

[tonyrec]

Ted,
Thats a very good point and i would like to say that there are a lot of people who do drive at excess speed who i personally wouldnt give then a pram to push, never mind drive/ride a vehicle at a ton plus.

[safespeed]

Guys,
Thanks for your comments.

Allow me to point out that the new page is attempting to highlight a very specific and subtle point - it's about how lower speed limits and higher levels of speed enforcement may influence the development of driver skills and hence influence the time to react available to the average driver.

The point about worse concentration at lower speeds is an important, but rather separate one.

Ted, This is emphatically NOT about the effect on enthusiasts - instead it's about the effect on the average.

(And when I say average, I'm talking about arithmetic mean - You might say the total of driver skills divided by the number of drivers)

Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk

[cptsideways]

If you adjust your speed & your anticipation levels to suit the surroundings & road layout markings then surely you are concentrating to a higher level.

If you simply adjust your speed there is nothing to say you aware of any hazards except Brunstrom points on your licence.


I have been followed by a trafpol car very late at night at "seriously excessive speeds" on some rural roads for 15 odd miles! I was using roadcraft though & not realising who it was behind obviously. However I made adjustements to my speed at certain points when hazards arose, foxes in the roads, dodgy juntions etc. When eventually pulled I thought it was bye bye licence.


However plod were very very good about it & pointed out my hazard awareness & rather enthusiastic driving style! A friendly apology & saying it was 3am etc. I'm sure if they thought I was driving dangerously I would have been in the slammer.


This whole route is now a poxy 40 limit, whats to say that anyone is aware of any of the hazards?

I therefore agree with safespeed on this one

>> Edited by cptsideways on Wednesday 7th April 09:57

[rospa]

PetrolTed said:

Playing devil's advocate for a moment it's an argument that stands up with motorists who take an interest in their driving but I'm sure there are plenty of numpties who would drive at 100mph given the chance but have little appreciatation for the types of hazards that they need to look out for.

Indeed. So maybe the way forward is for schemes like IAM/RoSPA to actually have some sort of meaning (i.e. direct benefit) in the driving world. Advanced drivers are self-selectors. The people who *really* need it, don't do it because they are ignorant of why they need it.

Maybe the advanced driving schemes ought to fall under the DSA. Personally, I find it a disgrace that two charities have to provide the means to teach people advanced driving techniques.

[safespeed]

rospa said:

So maybe the way forward is for schemes like IAM/RoSPA to actually have some sort of meaning (i.e. direct benefit) in the driving world. Advanced drivers are self-selectors. The people who *really* need it, don't do it because they are ignorant of why they need it. Maybe the advanced driving schemes ought to fall under the DSA. Personally, I find it a disgrace that two charities have to provide the means to teach people advanced driving techniques.

Yes yes yes! We have to have a nationally defined advanced driving licence, tested and graded to a national standard, with privileges for holders of the higher grades.

This is necessary to motivate higher training standards and to send the message to the average bloke that he doesn't know enough.

Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk

[WildCat]

And folk do not realise that we so-called petrol heads paid for our extra training (OK - so I get small rebate on insurance for having it! )

You already know my views anyway - privilege that you have to put time and effort int, and that I would very much like to see UK L-test brought at least to German standards (which is higher!)

Trouble is the numpties out there do not really know the rules, never re-read the HC ...

It would help if we had the "Think!" ads each commercial break - like we used to!

Except (and already ranted about it! ) they spend their ill-gotten gains on self-praise for fleecing!

[JMGS4]

safespeed said:

Guys, Thanks for your comments. Allow me to point out that the new page is attempting to highlight a very specific and subtle point - it's about how lower speed limits and higher levels of speed enforcement may influence the development of driver skills and hence influence the time to react available to the average driver. The point about worse concentration at lower speeds is an important, but rather separate one. Ted, This is emphatically NOT about the effect on enthusiasts - instead it's about the effect on the average. (And when I say average, I'm talking about arithmetic mean - You might say the total of driver skills divided by the number of drivers)

If you're talking about arithmetic, then I'd take the concentration levels of skilled drivers and divide it by the power of 3 or 4 at least to get down to the average numpty or mumpty........ judging purely by what I see daily...

[JMGS4]

safespeed said:

Allow me to point out that the new page is attempting to highlight a very specific and subtle point - it's about how lower speed limits and higher levels of speed enforcement may influence the development of driver skills and hence influence the time to react available to the average driver. The point about worse concentration at lower speeds is an important, but rather separate one.

Paul, I'm afraid I don't quite agree with you here,
"Time available to react" is very much to do with concentration.
Take for example a numpty who drives at 20-30mph everywhere, doing make-up, talking to the brats in the back, talking on the phone, worrying about the Gatso, worrying about the greenhouse gases, worrying about mummy in the OAP home, etc etc these all reduce the concentration level of DRIVING, therefore IMHO this is the most dangerous thing.
Driver skills of course will also be reduced as they are hardly likely to skid, do an emergency braking, know how to properly control their car in all situations, know how to check their tyre pressures
etc etc etc
Or have I the wrong end of the stick here?

[safespeed]

JMGS4 said:

If you're talking about arithmetic, then I'd take the concentration levels of skilled drivers and divide it by the power of 3 or 4 at least to get down to the average numpty or mumpty........ judging purely by what I see daily...

I agree, and yet we have the safest roads in the world. See the message of hope?

* We're already doing rather well

* There's massive room for improvement

Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk

[safespeed]

JMGS4 said:

Or have I the wrong end of the stick here?

There are two sticks. You have the other one. If I name the sticks, perhaps you'll re-read and understand, if not let me know. Since several folk have missed the point, I'll be adding further explanations to the new page.

Stick 1. The speed / concentration relationship. Well known and understood.

Stick 2. The new one. The proposition that asking less of drivers at slower speeds actually tends to limit the distance that they learn to look ahead. This will be a tiny effect in any individual, but averaged across an entire population could be very important.

Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk

[JMGS4]

safespeed said:

Stick 2. The new one. The proposition that asking less of drivers at slower speeds actually tends to limit the distance that they learn to look ahead. This will be a tiny effect in any individual, but averaged across an entire population could be very important.

AHA!!!! Yess!! Take a class of kindergarten kids, don't teach them anything and then put them in a car and let them drive...... compare to the University graduates who should(?) know more.....

Interesting theory, I'll put it to MrsJMG this lunchtime as she's a kindergarten cop........

certainly lack or reduction of education makes people unaware of certain things thus possibly a higher danger to all (see RC theology in Africa banning condoms?).
Is it however quantifiable? I doubt it, except after the effect has taken place, and in this case 1 death more is one too many......

[rospa]

safespeed said:

Stick 2. The new one. The proposition that asking less of drivers at slower speeds actually tends to limit the distance that they learn to look ahead. This will be a tiny effect in any individual, but averaged across an entire population could be very important. Best Regards, Paul Smith Safe Speed www.safespeed.org.uk

Not sure if this is related to the speed, though. Of course, no one sets out to have a collision but if people are able to stop in the distance they can see to be clear, then that is at least a positive step.
(If people are doing 30MPH do they really need to be able to see 1/2 mile in front)

I think it is more likely to be the general dumbing down of car drivers i.e. airbags, automatic gearboxes, GPS control, etc..

Us enthusiasts know that the faster you drive, the more you have to "raise your vision".

It seems we come back to the same old issues: Better driving standards (e.g. make test harder), frequent re-testing, proper support for advanced schemes, more TrafPol.

[echo]

safespeed said:

I have put up a new Safe Speed page that explores the bizarre proposition that lower speed limits and higher levels of enforcement might turn out to deliver less time for drivers to react.

At no time do you mentionin the 'perception' of risk? You mention less time to react - nut no one reacts unless they perceive that something is above their own risk threshold.
People categorise risk in different ways and one mans speed is another's dawdle.

A tangential example that made me laugh - my girlfriend's mother told her recently not to travel on the tube anymore because of the terrorist threat!!! Now that's loopy risk perception for you - she'd rather that we drove

[safespeed]

echo said:

At no time do you mentionin the 'perception' of risk? You mention less time to react - nut no one reacts unless they perceive that something is above their own risk threshold.

I don't mention risk because the learning process I'm talking about isn't much altered by risk perception mechanisms. Then the other factor that makes risk immaterial is that we're stuck with a population of drivers and their own individual risk assessment mechanisms and thresholds. We may be able to alter them - and I'd recommend doing so - but that's not at all the subject under discussion.

As far as reactions are concerned, most accidents and near misses involve attention and observation failures of one sort or another - it usually isn't the estimate of risk, but the perception of danger that fails. Too many accidents are preceeded by an "oh shit!" moment when a driver discovers that an accident is potentially unavoidable.

Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk

>> Edited by safespeed on Wednesday 7th April 14:19

[echo]

I thought you were talking about reduced reaction times due to lower concentration? If that’s the case then what I’m saying is that in a lot of cases reaction times do not come into the calculation unless and until the driver perceives the situation is above their ‘risk threshold’ – the “oh shit!” moment you refer to.

My answer to the lack of concentration is the old spike on the steering wheel (large spike in the centre of the steering wheel pointing at the driver’s heart) and no airbags or seatbelts

[Mr E]

Paul - most interesting. I shall have to spend some time re-reading the article, and intelligent comments on this thread.

For now, work intrudes.