On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:19:57 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <
[email protected]> wrote:
>>It's hard to attribute deaths to speed cameras (and the policies which support them, and the
>>policies which are consequent on them), because the effect on driving skills and behaviour is
>>subtle and insidious.
>It is, on the other hand, very easy to attribute deaths to mobiles since the effects on driving are
>quantifiable, large, dangerous and repeatable.
Easy at time of accident investigation. Easy if you believe in "speed kills". The RoSPA 19 were over
the period 1988 to 2000. A little over 1 per year.
>>It's isn't like creating a few maniacs, it's making many millions a few percent worse.
>And mobiles are making many millions substantially and measurably worse.
Not all at once at least... only when they're on the phone. And I do agree that mobile phones are
dangerous. If 1% of drivers are on the phone at any one time, at least that limits the danger group
to 300,000 not 30,000,000.
>>You can't improve most responsible peoples' performance at a task by draconian curtailment.
>But you can require them to obey the rules.
Up to a point, and when it's in the public interest to do so. Start beating them with a stick and
they become resentful.
>>You can and do improve most peoples' performance by giving responsibility, encouragement and
>>training. This is just basic man management.
>And in how many companies would "man management" tolerate safety rules being widely flouted?
It depends on the safety rules, obviously.
>>There are a few who won't learn and need curtailment maybe 5% or less of the population. The
>>Police used to spot them a mile off and deal with them appropriately.
>The police are still there, albeit in reduced force thanks to the Monster Raving Tory Party. This
>has bugger all to do with cameras and everything to do with headline-grabbing tax cuts and
>"efficiency savings."
If you check the graphs, you'll find it happened mostly too late for that to be true.
>>But we've now made the majority a little less responsible, a little less safe, a little more
>>angry, a little more distracted and more...
>Distracted? Oh yes, they're on their mobiles. The majority aren't distracted by cameras. The
>majority see the signs and slow down. Only the selfish arrogant wankers hammer up to the cameras
>and brake hard.
<sigh>
>>You guys in uk.rec.cycling are always complaining about declining standards. You seem to blame
>>"selfish drivers", but most are decent folk making the sorts of efforts they've been advised to
>>make in a complex environment. Like all humans they make mistakes.
>Mistakes like overtaking too close and killing someone, for example. Selfishness. As selfish as
>breaking the speed limit, in fact - al the benefits accrue to the driver, and the risk is shared or
>entirely placed on someone else. Not a behaviour to be encouraged.
Mistakes *in general*. And the risk often accrues to the driver. A very significant proportion of
out of town car accidents are "single vehicle" for example.
>>On the road a mistake turns into an accident if the margin for error is insufficient.
>Correct. For example, if the driver is going too fast.
>>The government appears to think that slowing down by a few mph will increase the margin for error
>>but it simply isn't true.
>Except in as much as reaction times are longer and the likelihood of death or serious injury in the
>event of a collision is reduced, obviously.
False argument. I have only once called on my reaction time to avoid an accident in 15 years.
Observation, anticipation and planning are called upon hundreds of times each day.
>>Drivers look as far ahead as they need to unless they are well trained. Proper observation,
>>anticipation and planning provides a margin for error large enough to accommodate the mistakes of
>>those around you as well as your own mistakes in the massive majority of circumstances.
>And since most drivers don't look far enough ahead that's a good argument for slowing them down.
It won't work. Asking them to look further ahead can make a difference. From 30 to 35mph the
required observation difference is only 1/8th second. If we could get the average driver to look
even 1/4 second ahead we'd get double the benefit.
>>If you guys wish to be surrounded by better drivers, you should join my campaign, not
>>denigrate it.
>That will happen the day you switch the focus of your campaign from self-justifying excuses for
>speeding, to a genuine concern solely for safe driving.
It is a genuine concern for road safety.
>>I want to make the roads safer, and I certainly don't promote the irresponsible use of speed.
>Your website, on the other hand, does promote the irresponsible use of speed, by encouraging
>speeders to believe that they are right and the law is wrong. The whole message of your site is
>that speeding is safe. There is precious little there which says anything at all about safe driving
>in general, you just keep hammering on about how speeding is perfectly safe and slowing peopple
>down makes them more dangerous. Whereas most of us here would rather be overtaken at 30mph than
>40mph any day of the week.
The whole message of my site is that modern speed enforcement is dangerous. I'm getting closer to a
watertight case.
>>I even think speed limits are a good thing.
>As long as they are not enforced, obviously.
As long as they are enforced in accordance with their design, and in the public interest.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK
http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives