[Closed] Do you flash other drivers when you see a speed camera van?

A "Precautionary trip to hospital" should not be recorded as Serious Injury.

I suspect they may use;

Severe general shock requiring hospital treatment

I suspect the category is used as a catch all for everyone who is a 'bit shaken up'

Wouldn't that fall into the final category which says:

[i]"(Persons who are merely shaken and who have no other injury should not be included unless they receive or appear to need medical treatment)."[/i]

I would say yes, but who's checking? The only quantifiable difference between those two categories without lengthy checking of the pt notes, is the trip to hospital. Of course a reasonable person not directly involved with the management of RTCs would assume that people in the second category would not be conveyed by emergency ambulance to an emergency department, wouldn't they?

But sadly, that is not the case.

Fair point. I suspect the police writing the STATS19 report [i]should[/i] get the notes checked, but I'd accept they may not always be that methodical, especially when they have [i]proper[/i] police work to do.

Couple of bullshit arguments appeared on here so thought I'd comment.
"I'd rather someone was speeding but concentrating than within the limit and not concentrating" speeding and lack of concentration are not mutually exclusive, indeed speeding can quite often be due to lack of concentration. See deadly's other stuff about careless driver not being careful shocker!
"Those for speed cameras have never broken the limit then?" Quite possibly, if I do ever speed and get caught, fined/points whatever, then I won't be bitching and moaning about it on here.

And of course proper police presence on the road would be nice aswell as speed cameras, does it have to be either or?

V8ninety most of your issues appear to be with the system being twisted/misused rather than the system itself (incorrect stats, dodgy speed cameras). Just saying like.

V8ninety most of your issues appear to be with the system being twisted/misused rather than the system itself

if I do ever speed and get caught, fined/points whatever, then I won't be bitching and moaning about it on here.

No-one was.

proper police presence on the road would be nice aswell as speed cameras, does it have to be either or?

If we had the former, why would we need the latter?

Why is it that speeding such an acceptable crime?

It is so prevalent on my commute that you get aggro if you don't speed and it can be quite dangerous.

If it wasn't such an eyesore then I'd be quite happy with average speed cameras on EVERY major road.

Ok, if you don't know that's fine.

I know perfectly well, thanks. I thought you might do too. If you google "regression to the mean" (GIYF - Google Is Your Friend - since I apparently have to spell everything out to you as you're being deliberately thick), the first hit mentions speed cameras - I even gave a link earlier on this thread which took you there.

Or is this just an attempt to get me back because I asked previously asked for evidence you were unable (or as it later turned out in one case, just unwilling) to provide, even in a link? Well I've given you the link - click away.

I'm still wondering what you can possibly present at a conference on teaching stats without being a statistician (or having a pretty good understanding of the subject at the very least), but you've become strangely coy.

Why is it that speeding such an acceptable crime?

For a start, in the strictest sens it's not a crime - you don't get a criminal record for committing traffic offences.

Also because it's just so easy to push that pedal a little harder - there's no solid line you have to cross, unlike for instance stealing from a shop. That and the arbitrariness. I'd argue that the overhyping of speed as a road safety issue (see 1/3 of accidents claim, when the real figure is more like 7%), and the setting of speed limits that many people think inappropriate (eg 70 on motorways and 50 limits on roads which used to be 70, never have been accident blackspots and perfectly safe at 70 - guess where I've been nabbed...) has done a good job of discrediting the anti-speeding rhetoric.

Why is it that speeding such an acceptable crime?

Because rightly or wrongly there is a belief that current limits are often inappropriate and don't take into account conditional variations.

Should limits be the same for a modern ABS-equipped car as for a Ford Anglia with drum brakes? Should a single carriageway past a school have the same limit at 3pm as it does at 3am? Is it safe for me to do 70 on a motorway in freezing fog during rush hour? Is it dangerous for me be be doing 75 on an empty motorway?

Speed limits are necessary because we don't adequately educate people to judge conditions sensibly (and because even if we did, some people would drive inappropriately regardless). The problem is that the figures set are fairly arbitrary 'one size fits all' limits.

I'd be quite happy with average speed cameras on EVERY major road.

I'd have no problem with that so long as they were variable limit roads with the current restrictions clearly posted, opening the roads up when it's safe to drive faster and slowing them down as conditions require.

Also because it's just so easy to push that pedal a little harder - there's no solid line you have to cross, unlike for instance stealing from a shop.

Perhaps cars should be (forcibly) fitted with some kind of sensor to read local speed limits and prevent the car from exceeding them (allowing for "boosts" of up to 30 seconds to "accelerate out of trouble").

Or they could even just automatically turn off the radio and making an annoying noise while you are speeding.

That would establish a solid line. Reckon anyone would vote for it?

Me neither.

50 limits on roads which used to be 70

I think that is the issue on my commute. Dual carriageway, but signed as 50 due to multiple junctions and a few accidents.

Actually driving at 50 frequently results in cars driving two inches form my arse and flashing their lights. I think that limit has actually made it more dangerous (though perhaps lessened the consequences).

(allowing for "boosts" of up to 30 seconds to "accelerate out of trouble").

Why make the distinction? Speed cameras don't.

Why make the distinction?

Because that is the #1 argument people offer when you mention limiters.

Speed cameras don't.

Average ones do.

cougar - what you forget is the effect of the car hitting something. at 25 mph a person who is hit by a car survives - at 35 mph they do not, How many thousands of deaths?

Car drivers kill thousands of people a year. Legislate and enforce the rules more not less

Because that is the #1 argument people offer when you mention limiters.

And with good reason.

Average ones do.

So, it's acceptable to speed, so long as you drive under the speed limit for a bit as well just to make up for it?

Good reason? what good reason.

at 25 mph a person who is hit by a car survives - at 35 mph they do not

How's that apply to motorways then?

Legislate and enforce the rules more not less

Sure. But let's get the rules sensible and appropriate first, eh?

Good reason? what good reason.

There are times when the most efficient way of avoiding an accident is to accelerate. Having an artificial limiter on a car would prevent this.

I know the 'correct' way is to slow / stop in all circumstances, but that's not always the best course of action.

Really? In what circumstances would accelerating to above the speed limit be safer?

This is a good approach: [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/some-freeride-god-had-dug-holes-in-my-trails ]http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/some-freeride-god-had-dug-holes-in-my-trails[/url]

So, it's acceptable to speed, so long as you drive under the speed limit for a bit as well just to make up for it?

No, but it is a reasonable compromise and neatly mitigates all the nonsense about [i]"I can't possibly watch my speed all the time"[/i] as well as the more sensible stuff about sometimes needing to accelerate out of trouble.

In what circumstances would accelerating to above the speed limit be safer?

I think it's fair to say it does happen TJ. It may not be common, but it's not a good idea to remove it as an option completely.

I know perfectly well, thanks. I thought you might do too. If you google "regression to the mean" (GIYF - Google Is Your Friend - since I apparently have to spell everything out to you as you're being deliberately thick), the first hit mentions speed cameras - I even gave a link earlier on this thread which took you there.

I'll look.

edit - OK, i looked at the wikipedia link, all I see there is the same statement you made, with some additional info

However, statisticians have pointed out that, [i]although there is a net benefit in lives saved,[/i] failure to take into account the effects of regression to the mean results in the beneficial effects being overstated.

which makes your 'fix' even more difficult to understand and I still don't understand how regression to the mean accounts for the apparent reduction in accidents. So, please, do explain. I mean really, I'm not getting back at you for some imagined slight. I can see that you were one of the people arguing the Utts point, but I hope I don't disappoint when I say I hadn't noticed until you mentioned it.

Or is this just an attempt to get me back because I asked previously asked for evidence you were unable (or as it later turned out in one case, just unwilling) to provide, even in a link? Well I've given you the link - click away.

Get back at you for what??

I'm still wondering what you can possibly present at a conference on teaching stats without being a statistician (or having a pretty good understanding of the subject at the very least), but you've become strangely coy.

Not coy, just didn't see how it was relevant and didn't want to take this thread of topic. I do have a pretty good understanding of the subject but could not clearly see how it applied in this situation which is why i asked you to explain. Then you went coy.

GrahamS

"In what circumstances would accelerating to above the speed limit be safer? "

I think it's fair to say it does happen TJ. It may not be common, but it's not a good idea to remove it as an option completely.

Ok - describe the circumstances then - the only one I can think of is when you have already made a misjudgement are are heading for a closing gap - and even then braking would stop you in time unless you were a complete numpty and didn't realise the gap was closing until too late

People claim this but I have never heard a plausible example for it

Ok - describe the circumstances then

Last week, I chose C), but good luck with the others, they might work for you...

Ok - describe the circumstances then

You mean apart from my video? 😉

It's a struggle (and I'm not a very experienced driver so the wrong one to ask) but I still wouldn't want to rule it out.

I've certainly been in situations where a hefty right foot has [i]felt[/i] useful - either through my own bad judgement or somebody elses.

v8 - with a 70 mph limiter no one is passing you. next.

Plenty of other options there anyway

v8 - with a 70 mph limiter no one is passing you. next.

Okay same scenario, but two lane road, so no third lane to escape to.

Braking puts him in greater danger.
GTFO of there is the safest option. No?

Why does braking put him in greater danger?

v8 - with a 70 mph limiter no one is passing you. next.

Haha, Brilliant, just like all those HGVs limited to 56mph that don't pass each other? oh wait, they do.

Also, notwithstanding the above, it wouldn't mean lane three would be empty, just because everyone is travelling at the same speed.

And we haven't all got 70mph limiters anyway, so just admit that mine's a plausible example... 😆

Why does braking put him in greater danger?

Because there is 40 foot of trailer behind him that is moving into his lane?

In what circumstances would accelerating to above the speed limit be safer?

I was going to use v8's truck example too. Basically, in any situation where the 'escape' route is in front of you it may be better to accelerate.

I've been almost run off the road by an oncoming vehicle before now, where accelerating has taken me to a gap and stopping would have almost certainly resulted in a collision.

Going through a junction, someone runs a red light from a side road. You're almost through the junction. Stopping is about the worst thing you can do in that situation.

You can probably now dissect all these and come up with "yes, but" arguments for all of them. But, that'd be missing the point. As a driver, you have a number of options available to you in emergency situations. An artificial speed limiter would reduce these options. Whether or not we can come up with robust examples that can or can't be picked apart is by the by.

No, but it is a reasonable compromise

Aren't you reading the thread? There is no compromise to be had, according to some. You were speeding = you deserve the penalty.

Aren't you [s]reading the thread[/s] on STW? There is no compromise to be had

FTFY 😀

You were speeding = you deserve the penalty.

I think if I did get a penalty in that sort of situation I'd either A) appeal it on the grounds I was escaping danger or B) just be happy that the only thing hurt was my license and/or wallet.

v8 - with a 70 mph limiter no one is passing you. next.

Yes, but you're passing slower-moving traffic. The only way that logic holds is if we make all the lorries do 70mph too.

Better yet, we'll make all the motorways 56mph. No overtaking, everyone's going the same speed, limited. We can do away with the other two lanes of the carriageway too, after all, no-one's overtaking any more so what do we need those for? We'll never have any accidents then, genius.

Whilst we're at it, we'll reduce all the built-up areas to 5mph, go back to the days of having a little man with a flag walking in front of the cars.

FTFY

Good point, well made.

Not buying that scenario at all. You can change your speed far faster with the brake than accelerator so by braking you would be out of the way of the trailer more quickly, You also have multiple other options and in the case of the motorway / third lane one you should know what is in the outside lane anyway.

If you've ever been stuck behind a lorry travelling at 56.6mph, that is overtaking a lorry (or worse, several lorries) travelling at 56.1mph, then you KNOW that speed limiter are not the answer. 🙄

I didn't say it was - I just think the "acceerate out of danger" idea is bunkum.

Mind you - in that sceneario you can of course just sit and chill for a bit.

You do realise that often on congested roads when you drop the speed limit the average speed goes up? Urban 20 mph limits often raise average speeds -especially as you no longer need nearly so many traffic lights.

This was seen on the m 25 for example

You're just being argumentative (as usual) TJ. Seriously.

So you are alongside the drivers cab of this thing:
[img] [/img]

Or maybe one of these:
[img] [/img]

And your plan is to slam on the brakes, hope you don't skid, hope no one smashes into the back of you, and let that whole vehicle pass you as it is swinging dangerously into your lane?

Good luck!

I'd be hitting the gas.

You can change your speed far faster with the brake than accelerator

Safely? What about the guy behind me? Is he going to stop? What about the traffic behind him? Dropping anchor at 70mph in the middle of the motorway might well be the best course of action in isolation, but in the real world it's the sort of thing that makes headlines containing phrases like "multiple fatalities."

What if I'm on a motorbike?

by braking you would be out of the way of the trailer more quickly,

You don't drive much, do you?

You also have multiple other options

You're on a dual carriageway. Name one. You can go faster, you can go slower. What have you got left, mounting the central reservation, leaning on the horn and close your eyes? A leaflet campaign? An announcement on Twitter? "zomg wtf truck nearly killed me lols"

I'm not saying it's the ideal course of action in every situation. But it does happen and, fortunately, whether or not you 'buy' it is immaterial.

TJ, I take it you are not a particularly seasoned driver? It shows. You asked for a plausible situation, I gave you one. Others exist.

Yes you can change speed far more quickly with brakes than acceleration, but thats no good if there's a twit in an Audi, or the other halk of said lorry behind you. If the Audi or the lorry collide with you, then it's their fault, but thats cold comfort IMO.

Yes you should know hats in lane three, but it would be pretty irresponsible to just assume you were right, without checking, wouldn't it? Anyway, what if I know whats in lane three, and its a stack of cars? or if there isn't a lane three?

EDIT; nice try at changing the subject when it's becoming increasingly obvious that you are wrong, TJ... Go on, admit it! it can't be [i]that[/i] hard!

#TJsquashedbyatruck is trending as we speak... 😆

No offence TJ xxx

Better yet, we'll make all the motorways 56mph. No overtaking, everyone's going the same speed, limited. We can do away with the other two lanes of the carriageway too, after all, no-one's overtaking any more so what do we need those for? We'll never have any accidents then, genius.

Not a bad idea, and given that everyone is travelling at the same speed over a long distance, we may as well link the cars together and provide a single motive force. We could then remove the engines from individual cars and make them just cabins in which we sit. In fact if we had a system of rails which guided the direction of these coupled cars, then we would even need to concentrate on the road, we could just sit back and relax as these cars ran on rails at a controlled speed all over the place.

Right! I'm a genius! I'm off to the Dragon's Den!

[s]Freudian Penetration[/s]

[s]Double Slip[/s]

I mean Double Post

Average speed cameras are ace; in that traffic doesn't back up at the approach to roadworks anymore (unless there is such a volume of traffic on the road as to make it unavoidable of course). I remember back in the days of Gatso type speed cameras in roadworks, everybody would merrily drive at 70, 80...etc until the Gatso then slam on the anchors down to 40ish causing everybody behind to do the same, eventually leading to a concertina effect, and a jam of crawling traffic to the roadworks. Now, it seems at most sites surveilled by average speed cameras, the traffic flows through much better.