Traffic Cameras – why not?

They can. But, if you believe it’s a moral imperative that people with greater skills or better cars must only use that capability to reduce their risk, rather than hedging that reduced risk factor against an incresed risk elsewhere… then how can you excuse other drivers who drive less capable cars or don’t have the same level of driving skills, and who therefore chooses to increase their risk factors over the skilled driver-good car-same speed guy?

I wasn’t aiming at some moral imperative, I was trying to debate with 007 that being skilled does not make your risk constant regardless of speed. I dont actually have a problem with him going faster if he chooses, I just wanted him to realise (accept?) that his choice of action does have an increased risk, which he doesn’t think is correct.

Regarding actions of others, well obviously its difficult even to persuade friends and relatives to do more than the minimum required nevermind strangers.

Now, replay the scenario but increase my speed so that my risk factors overall are identical. Why is it morally wrong to be exactly as unsafe as the other guy was? Why, when we were both going at the same speed, was it OK for him to be less safe? All other things being equal, the decision to go faster is basically having the same effect as the decision to fit shit tyres

Certainly a challenging one if you play out all the options. But basically if you take that at face value your treating it as a race to the bottom. ‘That guy didn’t try to not kill someone so why should I?’ . Morals are always a hard one to juggle, if you dont know the tyres are crap then you probably think you did what you could. If you knew you fitted great tyres but threw away that benefit by driving faster can you really feel happy with yourslelf just because someone else didn’t try better?

dazh – Member

Haven’t read the rest of the thread, has it got to the point where the pro-speeders are denying the laws of physics?

I also haven’t read the rest of the thread, but I’d wager that no-one can be trusted to choose their own speed safely except molgrips. 🙂

In a motoring utopia I’d be in favour of not needing speed limits because everyone was capable of choosing a sensible and appropriate speed.

…

After the discussion here I’m also in favour of better signage to better empower drivers to make educated judgement calls in order to dispel this “ah but you don’t know what happened here on a dark night twenty years ago” argument.

What could go wrong? 😉

Haven’t read the rest of the thread, has it got to the point where the pro-speeders are denying the laws of physics?

Not quite, but they are desperately clinging to the mantra that advanced driving skills give them the right to break the speed limit at a time of & place of their choosing, rather than stay within the speed limit & use advance driving skills to be safer & more considerate drivers.

All a bit sad really.

One of the ideas that doesn’t get aired much in this is non-linear deceleration as part of the braking distance. No matter how focused you are and how efficiently you stick the brake on, most of the actual slowing of the car happens in the final couple of metres of braking. I saw one graph which calculated that even a marginal difference in opening speed, say 32 mph versus 29 meant hitting the ‘running out kid’ at about 15mph more, the difference between minor injuries and life-changing ones, or death.

It’s a manufactured scenario, sure, and you can’t manage out the risks of hitting someone completely, no matter how careful you are, but that little nugget has certainly made me very conscious of keeping speed perhaps even lower than I normally would in residential streets and around town.

Equally you could argue I pay more attention and my concentration and observation are markedly sharper when I travel faster so there’s a reduced risk there. My attention is solely focused on driving. I wish it could be the case that it’s possible to have this heightened sense of concentration when trundling along in a queue of traffic at well below the limit, but sadly like everyone else I’m human and occasionally in this situation my mind wanders.

That’s a good point, driving is dull and attention can wane. As someone said earlier modern cars make driving easy and if you drive fast (autobarn was mentioned) this can make driving slow even worse, its like going at snail speed. I wonder how much that affects things too?

Not quite, but they are desperately clinging to the mantra that advanced driving skills give them the right to break the speed limit at a time of & place of their choosing

I’m guessing they must have heightened senses and reaction times when they go faster? 😀

Some light relief. Watch this informative video. How many of these situations would have been made safer by the drivers going faster?

I’m thinking particularly of the incidents starting at:
0:10, 0:22, 0:45, 0:51, 1:00, 1:50, 2:11, 3:12, 4:30

I’m not denying that a bit of observation would have helped in a lot of cases too!! 😆

(Also this video demonstrates why dashcams are a great idea – they are very entertaining!)

I saw one graph which calculated that even a marginal difference in opening speed, say 32 mph versus 29 meant hitting the ‘running out kid’ at about 15mph more, the difference between minor injuries and life-changing ones, or death.

+1.

I’ve heard this too.

One of the ideas that doesn’t get aired much in this is non-linear deceleration as part of the braking distance. No matter how focused you are and how efficiently you stick the brake on, most of the actual slowing of the car happens in the final couple of metres of braking. I saw one graph which calculated that even a marginal difference in opening speed, say 32 mph versus 29 meant hitting the ‘running out kid’ at about 15mph more, the difference between minor injuries and life-changing ones, or death

The main reason for this is that people don’t appreciate that brakes remove the kinetic energy from a car. The best theoretical example of this is to ask the question “if two identical cars one travelling at 100mph and one travelling at 70mph apply their brakes to the maximum the tyres will allow, what speed with the first car (the one that a started at 100 mph) be doing when the second one comes to a stop?” Most people instinctively reply 30 mph whereas the correct answer is 70 mph.

It’s a little bit “spherical chickens in a vacuum” but it does demonstrate the point.

A suitably trained driver will pick a similar speed to another suitably trained driver.

Oh yeah? Got a citation for that, or did you pull it out of your arse?

aracer > interesting reading, thanks.

I wonder how many calling for re-testing every 10 years have had a lesson in the last 10 years

I don’t believe there would be any benefit to me personally having a regular prepare-for-test driving lesson. I’d sincerely hope that’s true of most people here.

I went on a speed awareness course (ah, irony!) a few years back though. I’ve often thought of getting advanced lessons, I emailed the IAM once but never got a reply back. That’s probably a good topic for another conversation, recommended courses.

Oh, I do keep up to date with THC though, so that I can point-score in Internet arguments keep up to date with any changes.

Have any of the speeders addressed the ‘consistency’ argument yet?

The ones who expressed an opinion (myself included) agreed with you. Are you just looking for someone to disagree with you?

Equally you could argue I pay more attention and my concentration and observation are markedly sharper when I travel faster so there’s a reduced risk there. My attention is solely focused on driving. I wish it could be the case that it’s possible to have this heightened sense of concentration when trundling along in a queue of traffic at well below the limit, but sadly like everyone else I’m human and occasionally in this situation my mind wanders.

There was a documentary on TV a few years back about habitual speeders, and they demonstrated this phenomenon. I remember in particular a black cab driver (that is, a driver in a black cab) who went to custard when forced to drive below the speed limits. He was faffing about with the accessories controls and generally paying no attention to what he was doing. I can’t remember what the conclusion of the show was though.

For me, if I’ve spare brain capacity I’ll do the speedo game thing I mentioned earlier or use it to give myself a running commentary of what I can see (like, “name the hazards” or something). I found I learned a lot when I started to do it, you start to properly see a lot more of your surroundings when you’re actively going “ball in road, is a child about to run in the road after it?” It’s good brain training to get this sort of thing automated.

What could go wrong?

Hah, ace.

Point was more “accident blackspot,” or “hidden entrance” or some such. You know, all this hidden knowledge you were on about. Why keep it hidden?

We already do this signposting to an extent of course (rendering the argument moot), but it’s certainly not something I’d trust to be reliable (ie, assuming that unlabelled roads must be “safe”). Signs go missing and you can’t signpost for something like a lorry with a spilled load. But if this insider knowledge is so critical, get it out in the open.

I suppose this is tied up in part with people trusting signs and limits. Folk drive through deserted road works at night which have been speed-restricted to protect workers. No workers, why’s there a limit? There might well be a good reason; workers nearby but not immediately visible perhaps, I saw one once where people were working under the bridge that the traffic was on, so not visibly working but still needing a speed restriction for their safety. But many people will just see that they’re being held up for “no reason” and that breeds resentment and distrust, then ultimately they get into the habit of ignoring roadworks restrictions. Again this comes down to driver training really, but I’d wager that many habitual speeders would obey speed limits far more readily if they had built the trust that they are appropriate and there for good reason.

Oh yeah? Got a citation for that, or did you pull it out of your arse?

Seems plausible, if one argues that if they don’t choose a similar speed then ipso facto they aren’t suitably trained.

There’s the 85% percentile thing too of course, which is broadly the same concept.

No workers, why’s there a limit?

Well for one thing I’m sure it would be a pain in the arse to take down and put up temporary speed limit signs. It’s cost money (in additional man hours) and the task of replacing the speed limits every day probably exposes the works to more risk.

It wouldn’t be of much practical benefit anyway e.g. if there is a 5 mile section of road works it will take just over a minute and half longer to drive through at 50 mph than at 70 mph. Hardly a great sacrifice is it?

I wonder how many calling for re-testing every 10 years have had a lesson in the last 10 years

Me. Because I’ve only had my license for 9 years. 😀

*awaits flames for not being a proper driver*

You know, all this hidden knowledge you were on about. Why keep it hidden?

That’s the point I’m making with that image. That information may be too technical or too detailed to be neatly summarised in a sign that can be read at a glance.

A much easier way is for someone with suitable qualifications to sit down and digest all the relevant information and determine a suitable maximum limit that can be communicated simply and effectively by “a big number on a pole”. 😀

Have a read of the 15 Volume Design Manual for Roads and Bridges or even just the relatively lightweight 116 page Manual For Streets guidance.

Then have a think about the spread of intelligence levels in the people that you want to weigh up these criteria and risk factors for themselves!

Seems plausible, if one argues that if they don’t choose a similar speed then ipso facto they aren’t suitably trained.

Appearing plausible is not the same as actually being true 🙂

Again this comes down to driver training really

It come down to people not being arrogant cocks thinking they know best. Which is how we got to this thread, really.

molgrips – Member

Oh yeah? Got a citation for that, or did you pull it out of your arse?

I pulled it out of my arse.
Same place I keep my IAM certificate, and (now lapsed as I’m not driving) RoSPA Gold. Oh, and my 25m.

Really don’t know what you have against further training. Remember none of these organizations advocate driving in excess of the limit.
I’d like to see much harder tests to get on our roads, with much more experience needed.
Are you worried you wouldn’t pass?
You don’t exactly come across as a confident driver, and you continuously shun extra training whilst advocating deferring of responsibility for safety onto another party.

molgrips – Member

It come down to people not being arrogant cocks thinking they know best.

It’s that lack of arrogance that has lead me to continually improve my driving by external assessment.
💡

Really don’t know what you have against further training.

Nothing. Further training would be fantastic, and I think that the minimum standard should also be much higher. Your actual quote, and the one I took issue with was this:

A suitably trained driver will pick a similar speed to another suitably trained driver.

I don’t think that’s true. Nothing about further training or anything else. As any teacher knows, training people is one thing – what they do with the knowledge is up to them and is a lot harder to control.

You don’t exactly come across as a confident driver

Perhaps that’s because I’m highly aware of hazards? I’m confident, by the way, I’m just very careful. Most of the time, of course.

Well for one thing I’m sure it would be a pain in the arse to take down and put up temporary speed limit signs.

+-----------------+
| (50) |
| Monday - Friday |
| 8am - 8pm |
+-----------------+

It wouldn’t be of much practical benefit anyway

Did you read the whole post where I explained the practical benefit?

I don’t think that’s true.

“Got a citation for that, or did you pull it out of your arse?”

You’re both convinced the other is wrong yet neither of you actually know.

Well for one thing I’m sure it would be a pain in the arse to take down and put up temporary speed limit signs.

(50)
Monday - Friday
8am - 8pm

It wouldn’t be of much practical benefit anyway

Did you read the rest of the post where I explained the practical benefit?

I don’t think that’s true.

“Got a citation for that, or did you pull it out of your arse?”

You’re both convinced the other is wrong yet neither of you actually know.

Must admit, lack of confidence due to being rear ended was part of the reason behind me stopping driving (as well as lack of necessity).

I’ll definitely be getting some tuition before I return to the roads.

STATO – Member

I was trying to debate with 007 that being skilled does not make your risk constant regardless of speed. I dont actually have a problem with him going faster if he chooses, I just wanted him to realise (accept?) that his choice of action does have an increased risk, which he doesn’t think is correct.

To be honest I think that’s a misunderstanding of the argument being made. Going faster has an increased risk in isolation and I don’t think anyone’s disputing that, but it’s part of the big cocktail of risk and it’s entirely possible to increase speed risk, while decreasing it elsewhere.

Seems pretty clear to me that when people say decreased risk in this way, they mean the total combined risk, not the speed factor alone. if only because that’s the only way it makes any sense.

You’re both convinced the other is wrong yet neither of you actually know.

I didn’t say he’s wrong, I asked for evidence for him to back up his claim. If he has it, then great.

(50)
Monday - Friday
8am - 8pm

Seems like a reasonable approach BUT… Edinburgh has a similar approach to bus lanes: times on the sign and enforcement by camera.

According to this story in The Scotsman they issued more than 25,000 fines in a year and a similar scheme in Glasgow with more cameras “caught out” 128,633 drivers.

In the comments you see stuff like:

“Many Edinburgh bus lanes are incomprehensible, and many are contradictory. It is NOT POSSIBLE while driving with due care and attention to read the times on the signs.”

Yes, that sign above ^^. Incomprehensible.

I’d remind you that you work in an office where the employees apparently struggle to use a microwave despite the signs 😀 Thinking is hard. Many people don’t. Signs need to be very very simple.

molgrips – Member

I didn’t say he’s wrong, I asked for evidence for him to back up his claim. If he has it, then great.

Go and find a load of people that have just got an A* in A level maths.
Ask them to explain Pythagoras’ theorem.
You’ll get the same answer.
(replace with French students and a question in French for a better analogy that’s less prone to spectacularly missing the point)

Go and find a load of people that have just got an A* in A level maths.
Ask them to explain Pythagoras’ theorem.
You’ll get the same answer.

Ok you’re being really rather ridiculous now.

No, I’m pointing out the bleeding obvious.
Train people to the same high standard, test those people to the same high standards and you’ll get roughly the same results.

Driving is much more subjective than those things you mentioned.

That’s why the training and testing standards need to be higher.
Much higher than they are now.

It’s always going to be highly subjective due to how our brains work.

The only way you’ll get people to drive in exactly the same way is to have a set of rules to abide by. Oh………….

Extensive enough education and training can overcome this.

Go on a commentated drive with a few pros, you’ll see what I mean.

It really opened my eyes.

If all drivers were rational, maybe. But you can’t train that into people with a few courses. And what about people who just WANT to speed? Even though they know it’s not as safe?

People are a lot more complex than you seem to think.

ads678 – Member

The only way you’ll get people to drive in exactly the same way is to have a set of rules to abide by. Oh………….

Just using speed limits as one example to show you that you’re wrong; we’re all currently expected to choose what a safe speed to drive at is within that limit, or rule.
Only with increased training will drivers become better at making that decision.

As an aside to the bickering, if we want to improve driving then we need to get serious on the punishments for bad driving. Especially repeated bad driving.

This story popped up today: a van driver was still allowed on the road after EIGHT convictions for using a phone whilst driving. EIGHT FFS!

Then, just six weeks after convincing magistrates to let him keep his driving license (“hardship m’lud”), he did it again. Reading his texts whilst driving.

And this time he killed a cyclist. 🙁

And that’s still not enough to earn him a lifetime ban.

molgrips – Member

If all drivers were rational, maybe. But you can’t train that into people with a few courses. And what about people who just WANT to speed? Even though they know it’s not as safe?

People are a lot more complex than you seem to think.

Much better training and much harder testing will weed out the shit drivers.
The police are there to deal with dangerous criminals, we will always have criminals.

Much better training and much harder testing will weed out the shit drivers.
The police are there to deal with dangerous criminals, we will always have criminals.

What exactly do you call someone who kills another person like the story GrahamS has linked to?

Appalling failure of the justice there Graham.
That magistrate needs to be looked at and he is indicative of people’s terrible attitudes towards driving.