"Just zis Guy, you know?" <
[email protected]> wrote in
news:
[email protected]:
> LOL! You do realise that Smith has "proved" we would have the same
> fatality rate if we all drove at 12mph, by reference to a formula
> relating fatality to the fourth power of speed, don't you?
---
Strangely, I read that SafeSpeed release as a tongue-in-cheek
demonstration of the fallacy of the "speed uber alles" regime imposed by
the authorities.
That said, you do realise that Mr. Smith has issued a challenge to the
pro-camera lobby that remains unanswered? If scameras were really
demonstrably beneficial to road safety, I'd have thought the authorities
etc. would jump at the chance - but they haven't and their silence speaks
volumes. If you (or anyone else) thinks that Paul Smith is talking
baloney, you can take the matter up on the SafeSpeed forums
(
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/), where you'll even find traffic
police officers participating in the debate.
> It is incredible to me the extent to which some drivers resist the
> idea that, all other things being equal, the probability and severity
> of collisions will rise with speed. Mr. Newton described the reasons
> long ago.
---
It is incredible to me the extent to which pro-scamera propaganda has
brainwashed the public to believe the probability of collision rises with
speed. Pure physics doesn't account for the true factors in road safety,
but I'll go with Mr. Newton for a minute. Consider two billiard balls
both heading for the same spot at the same speed but will arrive at that
spot a tenth of a second apart. There is a limiting speed at which a
collision will occur. However, that limit is a maximum speed at or below
which the collision will happen. Above that speed, the balls will miss.
So, going back to Mr. Newton and applying your logic, it is quite obvious
that the probability of collision decreases with speed because the
potential colliders occupy the collision zone for less time.
I know that you're going to say "that's absurd - that just doesn't work
for road traffic." However, it is just as valid as your assertion and it
does illustrate the impotence of physics alone to determine whether an
RTC will occur.
The most important factors in road safety are human ones. Current policy
is sending very dangerous and completely wrong messages to the public:
1. Your primary responsibility to road safety is to obey the speed limit.
2. You will be safe if you do not exceed the speed limit.
Notice that there is nothing in that about reading the road and hazard
awareness, seeking to better your driving skills, COAST, etc. Just
encouragement to drive brainlessly at exactly the speed limit no matter
whether that speed is safe.
>
>>Whether the speed of others is at fault is almost irrelevant. If you
>>are not making adequate progress, you are a danger to others.
>
> The problem, of course, is that the speedophiles take this to mean
> that anybody moving at or below the speed limit is a danger...
---
Oh dear, I'm surprised that you didn't spell it "spaedophiles"!
Propaganda aside, the entire point is that there is a speed that is
safest for any particular driving situation. Sometimes that speed will be
slower than the speed limit; sometimes faster. However, it is less
frequent that the safest speed *is* the speed limit. This shouldn't
surprise because speed limits are semi-arbitrary values set without
knowledge of the conditions at the time of the actual journey (variable
limits, e.g. the M25 excepted). Yet, the authorities cling to speed
limits like the Holy Grail of road safety, and to the exclusion of proper
safety factors - and over 5,000 have needlessly died because of that.
>
>>For this reason, failing to make adequate progress is a major failure
>>point on the driving test and grounds for prosecution for driving
>>without due care and attention.
>
> LOL! In a way that speeding is not, yes?
Well, yes! Speeding alone is not grounds for prosecution for driving
without due care and attention. A prosecution for driving without due
care and attention would fail unless it was shown that your speed was
dangerous, and not merely in excess of the limit.
Let's be quite clear on this. Speeding is unlawful and if you speed on
your driving test, you will fail. However, the big problem with current
policy, based on the false "speed kills" mantra, is that they're
concentrating exclusively on whether you travel faster than some abitrary
datum *to the exclusion of real factors*. For example, traffic police
have been replaced by Gatsos and many constabularies have now done away
entirely with their traffic divisions - handing the role over to their
local "safety" camera partnership. Once an expedient way of bringing
dangerous and careless drivers to task, speeding has become the bee-all
and end-all and dangerous drivers can now wreak their carnage in near
certainty of not being caught provided they don't speed near automatic
detection equipment.
If your post wasn't so indicative of how the the public have become duped
by pro-scamera propaganda, I would ROFLMA right now. However, it's no
laughing matter. People are dying because of current policy.
What we now have are near-autonomous organisations that must prey on
motorists to survive. That is, revenue generation must come first on
their agenda. Thus, they'll spin and connive to justify their existence
just as the tobacco companies did against mounting evidence that they too
were killing people.
--
Geoff Lane
Cornwall, UK
