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

Graham - v8 was describing what he claimed was a real situation.

Cutting in to the inside lane - slowing down to do so if necessary. But its clearly best to anticipate correctly and not get into that situation

escaping from a river of lava?

Need to be careful of these, they are very destructive, relentless and destroying any [s]thread[/s]thing they come into contact with

If someone catches up with me as I am overtaking a truck, or perhaps a line of several trucks, you would recommend...

Cutting in to the inside lane - slowing down to do so if necessary.

So in, say, rush hour on the M6, if someone got too close to you in the outside lane as you were passing a line of trucks, you'd brake and go behind them all (forcing them to undertake you) rather than just complete the manoeuvre? Really?

whilst not causing other drivers to take evasive action

How do you know?

[quote=deadlydarcy]

Actually, he's not that far off. Maybe think about what you're typing when you're in a rush to bait TeeJ.

Actually he is quite a long way off. 

And also I'm not "Baiting" TJ. 

I'm "Correcting" him. There is a big difference. 

And to try and weaken my point by saying I'm "baiting" is pretty poor. 

[quote=TJ][b]

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

Quoted as absolutes - it's absolute rubbish. 
.

So......[b]Nobody[/b] has ever survived being hit by a car at 35mph ???

And.....[b]Nobody[/b] has ever been killed by being hit by a car at 25mph ???
.

If facts and figures are used to prove a point, they need to be at least [I]nearly[/I] accurate or the point is lost. 

However, what about everybody else on the roads who isn't up to your standards?

I've never said we should be allowed to speed, or that we should have speed limits or cameras, just for the record.

How do you know?

you'd brake and go behind them all (forcing them to undertake you) rather than just complete the manoeuvre? Really?

I [i]think [/i] he meant he'd nip left in a space to allow you to pass. Personally if you were up my rear while I was overtaking at the limit I'd ignore you.

Quoted as absolutes - it's absolute rubbish.

Yadda frickin' yadda. Thanks for all that. Now can you think of a situation where you have to speed up to save the world? If the answer is yes, then join back in. 🙂

higher standards of tests

The have got significantly harder to pass in the last few decades.

introduction of compulsory retests

Obviously, [i]you'd[/i] get an exemption though. 🙂

😛

Obviously, you'd get an exemption though.

Cheers, but you're ok, ta. Why so arsey? All I did was answer TJs appeal for a plausible example where transient acceleration got someone out of trouble. And only did because it actually happened to me a week or so ago, on the M6. I don't even particularly fall on one side or the other of this particular argument, I just think that the problem is far bigger than just speeding. I don't think speeding is big or clever, and I don't have any particular beef with speed cameras, except that they get used instead of proper road policing.

I've never said that I'm an amazing driver, but I take the responsibility of controlling a two tonne lethal weapon seriously, unlike most, it seems.

Yadda frickin' yadda.

TJ makes up statistics off the top of his head to keep an argument going ....

And I get "yadda yadda" in response, for pointing it out 🙄
.

Is this one of those "big hitter" things I keep hearing about ?

Coffeeking is right.

Doing this has saved me from a very nasty accident on my bike.

Busy M6. solid cars lane 1 and 2, I am overtaking in lane 3 safe distance from car in front. car comes up behind me and tailgates, I slow, indicate left and drop into the middle lane, he goes and tailgtes the car in front . As often happens all the outside lane traffic concertinas up, the tailgtor hits the car in front hard shunting it into the car in front of that. If I had not dropped into lane 2 I would have been squished.

One feels very vulnerable riding a bike and this tends to make yo anticipate more and to give greater safety margins

V8 - why did the truck pull out? was it looking to overtake?

I said "Well done."

🙂

@v8, I'm only yanking yer chain mate...and desperately trying to side with Father TeeJ. 😀

There is good evidence* that speed cameras are very effective at slowing traffic. They are usually sited in areas that statistically have a high accident rate or potential for accidents, e.g. near schools or where a fast road enters a residential area.

It is a shame that a financial penalty has to be used to enforce safe driving, but it's more effective than just explaining the consequences of speeding and hoping people will do the right thing.

*Can't be bothered finding evidence and presenting it here, but don't take my word for it, do some research.

Can't be bothered finding evidence and presenting it here, but don't take my word for it, do some research.

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Back up your "facts," otherwise what you're presenting there is hearsay and opinion.

Quoted as absolutes - it's absolute rubbish.
.

So......Nobody has ever survived being hit by a car at 35mph ???

And.....Nobody has ever been killed by being hit by a car at 25mph ???

Would you agree that drivers and riders who exceed speed limits cause more crashes, and kill and injure more people, than drivers who do not exceed speed limits?

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Back up your "facts," otherwise what you're presenting there is hearsay and opinion.

Contributory factors to reported road accidents, Department for Transport, 2010.

The National Safety Camera Programme: Four-year Evaluation Report by University College London & PA Consulting. Published by Department for Transport, December 2005

RoSPA Speed Cameras Factsheet 2011, RoSPA, 2011

The Effectiveness of Speed cameras: A Review of Evidence, Prof R Allsop, RAC Foundation, November 2010

TJ, I answered your question a few posts ago bud.

Contributory factors to reported road accidents, Department for Transport, 2010.

Unrelated to the point you're making.

The National Safety Camera Programme: Four-year Evaluation Report by University College London & PA Consulting. Published by Department for Transport, December 2005

The Effectiveness of Speed cameras: A Review of Evidence, Prof R Allsop, RAC Foundation, November 2010

Neither appear to be available online, so are hard to review.

RoSPA Speed Cameras Factsheet 2011, RoSPA, 2011

Based on the previous two reports so, whilst this does back up your claim, it's still difficult to verify the quality of the research.

Nontheless, I think it's a fair comment that cameras have an effect on speed when deployed. How many people slow down for the twenty yards where the cameras are though, and then speed back up again, it's hard to say. I'm not wholly sure that I actually disagree with you (though I'm not really sure what you're getting at).

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

Says the guy who use to take pride in riding a british frying machine to Russia. Are you trolling again TJ?

really cant be arsed reading all 1 millions posts but I can guess what its about. put it this way...if someone knocked down my kids and speed was a factor I'd hunt the the ****ers down.

we all do it from time to time and at the right time and place is not a problem if you done go mental but in city streets its a big no no.

I'm not sure why this is going on. TJ agrees there are circumstancez in which insufficient anticipation leads to situations where accelerating can be the safer option. We live in a non-deterministic world, so that situations arise which cannot be anticipated, so in real life, there are times when acceleration is the safest opton.

Or have i missed something?

to answer the original post, no. the other drivers won't know what I'm flashing at/about

I was driving to work the other morning, car behind me started flashing at me. Kept it up for a couple of minutes so I pulled over. He sailed on by without stopping to tell me why he was flashing. Do I look like a bloody psychic?

Anyway, I got out & checked all my lights, everything seemed ok. Couldn't check my brake lights until later, but found out they were fine. No leaks or anything hanging off the underside. So I have no idea why he was flashing. Not like I was holding him up, the car in front was holding us all up, doing 29mph in a 30 zone, shocking eh?

was it an uneven/bumpy road surface? 😆

Charlie - very rare, only if you have made a mistake to get into that situation - and even then braking might still be a better option. Better not to make the mistake

if the ability to accelerate in those situations was removed then the amount of extra crashes would be so small - and in comparison to the crashes prevented?

I have only been in that situation once in 35 years - an ill judged overtake where a down shift and smack the throttle open got me thru - I still probably could have braked in behind but was full of adrenaline. If I had got it wrong I was in big trouble - a head on with a closing speed of 150 mph. If I had braked instead the speeds involved would have been much lower - hit the back of car doing 50 at 60 mph or bounce on my arse at 55 mph

I think the concept of " accelerating out of trouble" is an excuse used by overenthusiastic poorly skilled drivers to justify overenthusiastic agreesive driving / riding and poor anticipation and yes - I include the scenario I have described there to show my own mistakes - cos that is what it was

Would you agree that drivers and riders who exceed speed limits cause more crashes, and kill and injure more people, than drivers who do not exceed speed limits?

No idea, do you have any evidence to persuade me one way or the other ?

That's not the point I was making though.

My point was, that incorrectly quoting a half remembered advert off the telly, weakens an argument.

Neal - you are just being pedantic - the point still stands - the slower you are going the more chance a pedestrian you hit has of surviving.

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.

Ah - sorry. I was assuming normal STW awkward attitude from somebody who knew the answer. I shall have to try harder at being awkward next time if you don't remember me from the other thread 😉 . I'm actually genuinely interested in what you can present at a conference on stats without being a statistician - just tuck it somewhere in a post trolling TJ and everybody will ignore it.

I'd love to explain regression to the mean with speed cameras, but right now there's a TJ who needs arguing with, so I'll have to get back to you later...

if the ability to accelerate in those situations was removed then the amount of extra crashes would be so small - and in comparison to the crashes prevented?

Or better put.. If every one rides with helmet there would be less cycling related death...

(See what I did here).

I think the concept of " accelerating out of trouble" is an excuse used by overenthusiastic poorly skilled drivers to justify overenthusiastic agreesive driving / riding and poor anticipation and yes - I include the scenario I have described there to show my own mistakes - cos that is what it was

I think it's time you re-take your motorcycling test my dear. Really.

Is this still continuing with any sign of an end? I only asked about ****in mobile camera vans! Oh an being able to accelerate quickly and sometimes break the speed limit briefly when overtaking is far safer than having to go down two gears in ya metro to sneak by after 30 seconds on the wrong side of the road! Discuss that one at will!

V8 - to be in that situation you did fail to anticipate - you failed to anticipate the truck pulling out.

Yeah - I was driving down the motorway when somebody pushed a block of concrete off a bridge. I completely failed to anticipate that. Fortunately I saw it as it started to get pushed over, and accelerated - clearly if I'd braked I might not have had it land on my car, I'd just have run straight into it.

I also failed to anticipate the meteor which crashed into the roof of my house, the tsunami which drowned me and the dinosaur which ate me. Clearly all my own fault.

<note to pedants - parts of this post may not be strictly accurate>

TandemJeremy - Member
Neal - you are just being pedantic - the point still stands - the slower you are going the more chance a pedestrian you hit has of surviving.

The accusation of pedantry, what a shocker that is 🙄

[b]Rule 6 of the "Internet Debater's" Handbook[/b]

Always accuse people of pedantry when you get pulled up for quoting bogus made up statistics !

if someone knocked down my kids and speed was a factor I'd hunt the the ****ers down.

How do we ascertain that "speed is a factor" (for ****er-hunting purposes)?

Is "speed a factor" if a motorist was above the speed limit, end of story, or is speed a factor when it's shown to have actually contributed to the cause of the accident?"

Putting that another way; if (say) 50% of all motorists speed, and 50% of motorists involved in accidents were speeding, are we concluding that speed is a 'factor' in half of all accidents? And is that a fair conclusion if so?

aracer

Yeah - I was driving down the motorway when somebody pushed a block of concrete off a bridge

Yup- another observation one. I see people standing on a bridge over the motorway I always watch them. I look at every bridge for people chucking stuff off and for spotters for speed traps. If I see someone standing on a motorway bridge I try to change lanes so I do not go underneath them 🙂 Seriously I do this altho no one will believe me.

Jeezo - some people are unobservant.

neal - or on the other hand you can pedatically pick holes in something whan you have no counter to the point made - which you have not.

Pedantry accusations? Do you think he is wrong ?

Putting that another way; if (say) 50% of all motorists speed, and 50% of motorists involved in accidents were speeding, are we concluding that speed is a 'factor' in half of all accidents? And is that a fair conclusion if so?

That looks to me like speed is not a factor

Putting that another way; if (say) 50% of all motorists speed, and 50% of motorists involved in accidents were speeding, are we concluding that speed is a 'factor' in half of all accidents? And is that a fair conclusion if so?

Or speed was a factor in 0% of accidents.
Or speed was a factor in 100% of accidents.
Or anywhere in between 0% and 100%

Or just hunt the ****ers anyway ?

Yup- another observation one. I see people standing on a bridge over the motorway I always watch them. I look at every bridge for people chucking stuff off and for spotters for speed traps. If I see someone standing on a motorway bridge I try to change lanes so I do not go underneath them

Ah, so for the meteorite you have your own space observatory you check every 5 minutes, and then rebuild your house brick by brick 10m to the left, for the tsunami you keep a constant watch on earthquake monitoring sites and hop in the motorboat and head out to sea, and for the dinosaur... actually I'm struggling to work out how you anticipate the dinosaur with only the aid of stone age tools.

if the ability to accelerate in those situations was removed then the amount of extra crashes would be so small - and in comparison to the crashes prevented?

So you think accidents will be reduced if you remove one of the four relative directional options for evasion?

Anyway, back to the far more important point about regression to the mean.

With the policy on siting of speed cameras being that they had to be placed in an area where there had been accidents (I suspect even without a stated policy - and if that policy has now been removed - that there would be the same effect), there is a tendency to site new cameras when there have been a number of qualifying accidents within the recent past. Accidents which are part of the "before" statistics. After the camera is placed, it is far more likely that the number of accidents in the locality will become closer to the long term mean than further away from it compared to the period before it was placed (given a typical stochastic accident distribution). Given an anomalously high number of accidents relative to the long term average in the before period (for the reasons given above), the number of accidents will reduce after the siting of the camera. Regression to the mean rather than any effect of the camera.

Apologies for the use of statistical terms - I'm hoping anybody interested can cope. Apologies for any accidental incorrect use of statstical terms - I'm not a statistician (I just have a basic understanding as sometimes required for problems in engineering), I hope it doesn't distract from the explanation.

I think I said something like that pages ago, aracer... No where near as eloquently though! 🙂

I can see how that works on an individual site, but when the stats are aggregated over a number of sites the gains are greater than regression to mean would allow

So you think accidents will be reduced if you remove one of the four relative directional options for evasion?

this was in the context of having all cars mandatedly limited to the speed limit in that location - some wanted the ability to accelerate beyond the speed limit to "accelerate out of trouble"

In that situation the ability to accelerate out of trouble would be so rare if it ever existed that it would cause very few if any crashes to remove the ability to do so, whereas removing the ability to accelerate in excess of the speed limit would reduce accidents considerably and minimise the consequences of these accidents

this was in the context of having all cars mandatedly limited to the speed limit in that location - some wanted the ability to accelerate beyond the speed limit to "accelerate out of trouble"

What? You mean this was all hypothetical? In the artificial context of a limited speed?