On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:30:08 -0000, "Jon Senior"
<jon_AT_restlesslemon.co.uk> wrote in message
<
[email protected]>:
>> Solution: ease off the throttle until either the twit
>> drops back or you are going slow enough for his ludicrous
>> following distance to be safe.
>And one I frequently use. I was referring to the situation
>that I originally described regarding speed cameras.
Point remains: the problem is not the speed camera, but a
bad driver. Bad drivers are bad drivers whatever goes on
around them.
>> Why either / or? And why make excuses for speeding in
>> this way?
>Because one addresses the main cause of accidents while the
>other addresses a minor accessory to the former. Out of
>interest, do you think that the current limits are
>appropriate?
The major part of the problem is the underlying mindset,
which leads to speeding and to a range of other
undesirable behaviours. The idea that the set of drivers
who speed is different from the set of dangerous drivers
is seductive of course - most drivers speed, after all,
and who wants to be though of as a dangerous driver? but
there is a signifcant correlation between speeding
convictionas and crash involvement, and between speeding
and other traffic offences.
Speeding is easily detected automatically, which is a plus
because the Police performance criteria discourage forces
from resourcing traffic divisions, so having part of the job
done by self-funding machines is at least allowing the
traffic plod to do the work which requires judgement.
Do I thnk all limits are appropriate? Not really, but a
surprising nuber of "inappropriate" limits turn out to be
appropriate when you look in detail at the road. Many of
them are the result of changes to the criteria allowing
councils to apply more limits; a lot of these roads should
have had limits years ago but couldn't because the old
criteria were too rigid. In some cases the number of
fatalities was just below the required levels, or the
community through which the road ran had been effectively
excluded by the speed of through traffic. In some cases
councils have been over zealous in applying limits, but that
is a matter for the local electorate. They can vote in a
council which changes that.
There is a false claim made in opposition to reduced limits:
that if the road was "safe" yesterday at 60mph, it cannot
now be "dangerous" to exceed 40mph (or whatever). This
denies the fundamental truth that on any given road,
reducing the average speed reduces both the number and the
severity of crashes. Probability of death rises with the
fourth power of average speed on a road, an inconvenient
fact which the ABD and it's fellow-travellers are less than
keen to publicise. No road is "safe" at 60mph or at any
other speed, the speed limit is an indication of the level
of risk which society is prepared for motor traffic to
impose on other users of any particular stretch of road. If
society decides, through whatever process, that the level of
tolerable risk should be reduced, so be it. We all have a
vote. Which, experience shows, we use to support those who
reduce the speed around our homes, our schools and our
communities, while railing against those who try to reduce
speeds around other homes, schools and communities. Funny
old world.
In any case I believe that, like cameras, the level of
bleating from the poor downtrodden[1] motorists - who only
kill and injure a few hundreds of thousands a year after all
- will surely result in the return of the old "blood on the
streets" criteria before long. We are all motorists now,
after all. Except the poor, children, the elderly and the
disabled, obviously.
>> The "capabilities of the road" take no account of those
>> who might be incapable of or unwilling to drive in excess
>> of the posted limit;
>What speed would these people drive at if the posted limit
>was removed? What difference does it make to them what the
>limit is? I have not suggested a compulsory minimum speed,
>just the removal of the maximum one. That way you can drive
>however fast (Or slowly) you like.
That would be profoundly dangerous. As previously noted
drivers routinely overestimate their own skill, and in any
case most drivers assess "risk" primarily in terms of risk
to them, coccooned in their increasingly crashworthy tin
boxes. What of the danger to others? Britain's reputation
for road "safety" has been largely at the expense of scaring
the vulnerable off the roads. In 1971, 80% of seven- and eight-year-
old children went to school on their own, by 1990 only 9%
were making the journey unaccompanied, and the dcline
continued through the 90s. The major reasons cited are
traffic danger and "stranger danger". But of course
"stranger danger" is magnified when children are isolated -
in other words, the inexorable move towards car transport to
school has multiplied both problems (even allowing for the
obvious fact that the "stranger danger" issue is grossly
exaggerated). Is that an improvement, do you think? The road
"safety" lobby portrays it as such.
>> it also takes no account of vulnerable road users who
>> might be travelling at substantially less than the limit.
>Vunerable in the sense of a cyclist? I'm talking about
>major trunk roads (Motorways predominantly). Not really
>somewhere you should be on a bike anyway.
We have a right to use every road from which we are not
specifically excluded, which mainly means motorways. I often
ride on trunk roads, and I don't time trial. Time triallists
do much of their riding on trunk roads. And what consititues
a trunk road? A cross-country A road, being the only
significant road linking two adjacent towns? Many drivers
seem to want to treat country A roads a their personal
racetracks, despite the fact that cyclists, tractors, horse
riders and pedestrians are all to be found on these roads.
Again, the fewer of us there are, the greater the danger,
because drivers won't be expecting us.
In any case you can't consider one part of the road network
in isolation. You could suggest, I suppose, removing limits
solely for motorways - I would say that would be unwise.
They are one of the few parts of the road network where the
fatality rate is currently increasing (although this is
obviously impossible in SmithWorld[tm] because motorways
have very few death cameras, so the DfT must be lying; I
wonder if 5m*th and Mike Corley are related?). In Germany
the unlimited autobahns appear to have worse crash records
than our motorways, despite manifestly better standards of
lane discipline and other driving skills.
>> Limits exist as a recognition of the fact that drivers,
>> left to their own devices, do not choose safe speeds.
>> Most drivers overestimate their own skill.
>Then the problem is with the drivers.
And always has been. Hence the existence of the Road Traffic
Regulation Act and its many siblings.
>One of my other "ideas" was to offer tax incentives (fuel
>perhaps) to driving instructors to reduce their fees,
>allowing learners to gain more driving experience before
>sitting their tests.
I would suggest that would be pointless, because at the
moment the test is fundamentally designed to let as many
people pass as possible; until it is changed to something
which is actually difficult to pass, and until those who
fail repeatedly are required to demonstrate more than token
competence before being trusted with a licence, any other
measures are a waste of time.
>I would also consider that teaching (Hands on) skid control
>should be compulsory. Drivers should be made aware of their
>skill, not told that "speed = bad". As with the shock
>campains aimed at reducing drug take-up in the young, it
>only serves to make the state seem unreliable with
>information.
No, what makes the state seem unreliable is those
organisations with a vested interest in speeding, and their
friends in the press, pretending that speed is *not*
dangerous, when it is very apparent that not only is
excessive speed a cause of a third of crashes, it is also
the prime determinant of severity of outcome of crashes. And
yes, the speedophiles love to pretend that speeding is not
necessarily excessive speed. They are wrong there, as well,
by the timeyou are in the Gatso zone you are getting on for
twice as likely to crash, depending on road type. Again, the
correlation between crashing and speeding convictions
confirms that it is they who are wrong.
>If the limits exist to counter a different problem in
>driving, namely driver awareness, then surely the obvious
>solution is to ban public driving licences, and make
>commercial vehicles the only ones allowed on the roads!
No, the limits are there to counteract the fundamental
problem thet all the benefit of speed accrues to the driver
and most of the risk is offloaded on others.
>Most of the advanced driving "skills" that I have, I learnt
>through trial (and thankfully not much error) after taking
>my test. Cornering hard on open country roads taught me
>what it feels like when the car is near to losing traction.
Not something that should be learned on the public roads,
whatever the courts may think. Or was it "unintentional
accelerator syndrome?" Or "driving like a ******" as it is
more often known. No, not you, a recent incident involving a
driver discovering the limits of traction of his BMW to the
(fatal) detriment of bystanders.
[1] downtrodden in the sense that motoring duty
revenues are now approaching the costs of private
motoring to society, heralding the end of a century
of concealed subsidies
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
