Discussion
james_j said:
"Speed removed as a causation factor" in placement of revenue cameras.
That wouldn't be because speed is so rarely a causation factor would it?
Well, surprise surprise.
Speed as a major cause/contributory factor of an RTA is quite rare.
Speed is the cause of the outcome of the injuries and is a major contributing factor. That is what the Govt do not make clear.
gone said:
"Speed removed as a causation factor" in placement of revenue cameras.
That wouldn't be because speed is so rarely a causation factor would it?
Well, surprise surprise.
Speed as a major cause/contributory factor of an RTA is quite rare.
Speed is the cause of the outcome of the injuries and is a major contributing factor. That is what the Govt do not make clear.
So that would be where the speed hasn't been reduced prior to impact (or the impact avoided altogether).
As in someone not watching the road?
Or perhaps as in someone watching their speedo!
james_j said:
"Speed removed as a causation factor" in placement of revenue cameras.
That wouldn't be because speed is so rarely a causation factor would it?
Well, surprise surprise.
Sounds to me like "1984" is here! If the rules don't fit, change the rules! Hail! Big Brother!
Next it will be the Thought Police! 'ere Sir, I see you've bought yourself a nice sports car there Sir, we must 'ave been thinkin' abart speedin' mustn't we Sir! Havin' bad thoughts is NICHT VERBOTEN, Big Brother will NOT be pleased Sir, £60 + 3 points, payable NOW! Sir.
Hey! Jus' thought! George Orwell? wasn't his REAL name BLAIR! ERIC BLAIR! Do you think .............?
HATE! HATE! HATE! HATE! Er sorry, got carried away!
gone said:
Speed is the cause of the outcome of the injuries and is a major contributing factor. That is what the Govt do not make clear.
It isn't true. There's almost no relationship between free travelling speed and average impact speed. Why? Because driver response is far far more significant. Try these references:
www.safespeed.org.uk/killspeed.html
www.safespeed.org.uk/proof.html
www.safespeed.org.uk/thatad.html
www.safespeed.org.uk/12mph.html
www.safespeed.org.uk/percentages.html
Or try this simple thought experiment. Only about 1 incident in ten is an accident (the other 9 are near misses due to adequate driver response). Therefore the average impact speed of an incident is under 10% of free travelling speed.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
bogush said:
gone said:
james_j said:
"Speed removed as a causation factor" in placement of revenue cameras.
That wouldn't be because speed is so rarely a causation factor would it?
Well, surprise surprise.
Speed as a major cause/contributory factor of an RTA is quite rare.
Speed is the cause of the outcome of the injuries and is a major contributing factor. That is what the Govt do not make clear.
So that would be where the speed hasn't been reduced prior to impact (or the impact avoided altogether).
:Yes: and the faster they are going, the worse the damage is likely to be.
bogush said:
As in someone not watching the road?
Is a significant contributory factor in accidents but not in the severity of injury caused.
bogush said:
Or perhaps as in someone watching their speedo!
You are obviously in need of some remedial training. You do not and are not supposed to glare at your speedo.
An occasional glance is all that is required to check that your speed is what it should be. No different to mirror checks to see who is behind you.
If you cannot negotiate a vehicle along a stretch of road and have a reasonable feeling for the speed you are doing from experience, then you should think about not driving very seriously indeed.
>> Edited by gone on Friday 16th April 02:43
So you obviously spent a whole minute not looking at the Safe Speed links before posting.
You just don't (can't?) get it, do you?
a) The cruising speed is not necessarily related to your impact speed.
b) Research shows that if you are travelling too slow for the conditions as well as too fast for the conditions fatalities rise.
c) Research shows that the kind of places where they place cameras are the kind of places where the speed limit forces you (or, rather, the camera now forces you) to drive too slow for the conditions.
d) To make things worse, the driver is now also distracted by the camera and the speedo, as well as driving too slowly.
e) Unsurprisingly, given the above, the formerly falling fatality trends have now reversed.
f) You are the cause of this reversal.
NOT "speeding" drivers!
Right:
So if I'm driving along observantly at 40 in a safe 30 and someone tries to throw themselves under my wheels and I take the appropriate action and no collision ensues, because I was cruising at 40, serious injury or death will still result?
But if I'm driving along unobservantly at 29.9 in a safe 30 and someone tries to throw themselves under my wheels and I don't take the appropriate action and a collision ensues at 29.9mph: because I was only doing 29.9, no serious injury or death will result because my lack of observation!
Are you sure you've got a driving license?
Try telling that to a biker who's been killed by mere lack of observation as opposed to evil speedophilia.
Errrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
You are obviously in need of some remedial reading lessons.
You could start by actually getting someone to read my posts to you.
Published, but, surprise, surprise, unpublicised, government research concludes that you are talking utter and total bqpcks.
Firstly, the human brain doesn't come with a built in speedo calibrated in mph or kph depending on the country of birth.
Secondly, it works on relative speed.
Thirdly, if you are driving along at a nice safe legal 30 and the road gets progressively safer:
Your speed will get progressively faster.
And it will get progressively more illegal.
Because, as far as your mind is concerned, you are doing exactly the same speed.
And you are:
The safe speed for the conditions.
Fourthly, while an "occasional glance is all that is required" from a safe and competent driver where the limits are reasonable, clearly marked, and enforced with discretion this doesn not hold true where the limits are inappropriately low, unclear and policed by robots.
You clearly don't really drive, but are merely regurgitating from a book.
Or more likely a pro-scamera PR.
I suppose if you were ever to anything as suicidal as fly you would try to grab the controls and slow the plane down to a nice safe 29.9.
After all, the slower you go: the safer you are.
gone said:
bogush said:
So that would be where the speed hasn't been reduced prior to impact (or the impact avoided altogether).
:Yes: and the faster they are going, the worse the damage is likely to be.
You just don't (can't?) get it, do you?
a) The cruising speed is not necessarily related to your impact speed.
b) Research shows that if you are travelling too slow for the conditions as well as too fast for the conditions fatalities rise.
c) Research shows that the kind of places where they place cameras are the kind of places where the speed limit forces you (or, rather, the camera now forces you) to drive too slow for the conditions.
d) To make things worse, the driver is now also distracted by the camera and the speedo, as well as driving too slowly.
e) Unsurprisingly, given the above, the formerly falling fatality trends have now reversed.
f) You are the cause of this reversal.
NOT "speeding" drivers!
gone said:
bogush said:
As in someone not watching the road?
Is a significant contributory factor in accidents but not in the severity of injury caused.
Right:
So if I'm driving along observantly at 40 in a safe 30 and someone tries to throw themselves under my wheels and I take the appropriate action and no collision ensues, because I was cruising at 40, serious injury or death will still result?
But if I'm driving along unobservantly at 29.9 in a safe 30 and someone tries to throw themselves under my wheels and I don't take the appropriate action and a collision ensues at 29.9mph: because I was only doing 29.9, no serious injury or death will result because my lack of observation!
gone said:
Because "someone not watching the road?
Is a significant contributory factor in accidents but not in the severity of injury caused.
Are you sure you've got a driving license?
Try telling that to a biker who's been killed by mere lack of observation as opposed to evil speedophilia.
gone said:
bogush said:
Or perhaps as in someone watching their speedo!
You are obviously in need of some remedial training. You do not and are not supposed to glare at your speedo.
An occasional glance is all that is required to check that your speed is what it should be. No different to mirror checks to see who is behind you.
If you cannot negotiate a vehicle along a stretch of road and have a reasonable feeling for the speed you are doing from experience, then you should think about not driving very seriously indeed.
Errrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
You are obviously in need of some remedial reading lessons.
You could start by actually getting someone to read my posts to you.
Published, but, surprise, surprise, unpublicised, government research concludes that you are talking utter and total bqpcks.
Firstly, the human brain doesn't come with a built in speedo calibrated in mph or kph depending on the country of birth.
Secondly, it works on relative speed.
Thirdly, if you are driving along at a nice safe legal 30 and the road gets progressively safer:
Your speed will get progressively faster.
And it will get progressively more illegal.
Because, as far as your mind is concerned, you are doing exactly the same speed.
And you are:
The safe speed for the conditions.
Fourthly, while an "occasional glance is all that is required" from a safe and competent driver where the limits are reasonable, clearly marked, and enforced with discretion this doesn not hold true where the limits are inappropriately low, unclear and policed by robots.
You clearly don't really drive, but are merely regurgitating from a book.
Or more likely a pro-scamera PR.
I suppose if you were ever to anything as suicidal as fly you would try to grab the controls and slow the plane down to a nice safe 29.9.
After all, the slower you go: the safer you are.
Richard C said:
If you cannot negotiate a vehicle along a stretch of road and have a reasonable feeling for the speed you are doing from experience, then you should think about not driving very seriously indeed
Get real - a "reasonable feeling for the speed you are doing" is insufficient protection for your licence now in the ever nastier world of revenue seeking enforcement helped by zero tolerance and unrealistically low limits
I think this is the nub of this argument. We do all have a reasonable feeling for our speed, but when prosecutions take place for just 1-2mph above the limit then I think that a <10% leeway requires more than just a "reasonable feeling". In fact it requires absolute certainty, which forces a regular (if not actual constant) check for the actual (not just general) speed of the car.
Peter Ward said:
I think this is the nub of this argument. We do all have a reasonable feeling for our speed, but when prosecutions take place for just 1-2mph above the limit then I think that a <10% leeway requires more than just a "reasonable feeling". In fact it requires absolute certainty, which forces a regular (if not actual constant) check for the actual (not just general) speed of the car.
Agreed PW!
Lets look at it another way.
Suppose the speedo scale is marked in 5mph increments, not uncommon. (eg Mrs Fif's last car had markings at 10mph intervals!)
Scientifically the most accurately that instrument can be read is +/-2.5mph. Its known as experimental error which I'm sure we all remember from school.
OK so with a glance we can probably estimate it closer than that, but thats all it is an estimate.
Therefore I argue that to punish someone for an infringment where the value of the offence is less than half the experimental error is patently unfair and unjust.
QED
>> Edited by flat in fifth on Friday 16th April 10:09
I loathe the term 'partnership' in these matters.
Have you noticed how the left wing nonces who promulgate such mindless terminology are also the sort of spineless plebs who use the word 'community' in every other sentence?
There's a sort of inspiration-sapping, generic blandness in their strictly utilitarian view of the world order and transport needs to be as functional and uncolourful as the people they seek to dehumanise.
Miserable dogs.
Have you noticed how the left wing nonces who promulgate such mindless terminology are also the sort of spineless plebs who use the word 'community' in every other sentence?
There's a sort of inspiration-sapping, generic blandness in their strictly utilitarian view of the world order and transport needs to be as functional and uncolourful as the people they seek to dehumanise.
Miserable dogs.
Richard C said:
If you cannot negotiate a vehicle along a stretch of road and have a reasonable feeling for the speed you are doing from experience, then you should think about not driving very seriously indeed
Get real - a "reasonable feeling for the speed you are doing" is insufficient protection for your licence now in the ever nastier world of revenue seeking enforcement helped by zero tolerance and unrealistically low limits
Works for me.
25 years driving, never been nicked!
safespeed said:
Speed is the cause of the outcome of the injuries and is a major contributing factor. That is what the Govt do not make clear.
It isn't true. There's almost no relationship between free travelling speed and average impact speed. Why? Because driver response is far far more significant. Try these references:
Of course there isnt because astronauts travel at hundreds of MPH without incident.
Experience from dealing with collisions tells me that if you are unlucky enopugh to crash at speed, the higher the speed, the worse the injury is likely to be. This is a simple equation of physics.
Something to do with Newton I think!
And driver response has nothing to do with being hurled into a steering wheel at 60mph if the response available to the driver is less than 1 second!
>> Edited by gone on Friday 16th April 10:44
safespeed said:
Or try this simple thought experiment. Only about 1 incident in ten is an accident (the other 9 are near misses due to adequate driver response). Therefore the average impact speed of an incident is under 10% of free travelling speed.
Try this then.
only 1 incident in ten is an accident. Most are avoidable collisions. In fact there is really no such thing as an 'accident' and what you have spouted there is basically immeasurable so why bother!
You can try and blind as many speed freaks as you like with this nonsense but if you crash at high speed, you or more importantly someone else is likely to be hurt badly and die as a result regardless of who's fault the collision is caused by in the first place.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy driving at speed but I do not do so in areas where there has been deemed (even by someone else) to be a greater risk to others and to myself.
Best regards
Gone
Ex traffic officer and attender of 100's of injury collisions and 10's of fatals!
>> Edited by gone on Friday 16th April 10:49
mondeoman said:
Forgetting of course that different cars have differing internal environments, hence the "feeling" of speed changes.
Compare a older mini with a Beemer, one noisy as anything, where 60 feels like a ton, one smooth n quiet, where a ton feels like 40.
I drive many different vehicles, some old and shakey (normally my own) and some swish and luxurious, I can't see a problem with keeping at a limit by glancing at the speedo every few seconds and co-ordinating your right foot to adjust the needle to where it should be.
It really is not that difficult!
Still experience has shown me that most drivers rarely look in their mirrors as well so perhaps speeds should be brought down dramtically to cater for those who have a problem with co-ordination and multi tasking
Its basically a question of control
Are you in control of your vehicle or is it in control of you?
>> Edited by gone on Friday 16th April 10:54
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff