H
Howard
Guest
Hi there, anyone wondering just why so many drivers in the U.K. are so ill-informed should have a
look at the 'safespeed' site. Those of a robust constitution might even find it funny. At times
reading it is akin to having a debate about evolution or geology with a creationist it is so bone
headed, simplistic and opinionated!
One might at first be led to think that the author is arguing for motorists to drive at a more
'appropriate' speed which recognises that in many situations the currently legal speed limits are
ridiculously high (especially given that vulnerable road users use the roads as well as airbag and
crumple zone protected car drivers). 'Always be able to stop well within the distance you can see to
be clear' is a good piece of advice that most drivers ignore much of the time. However, a closer
examination of the site shows that it is full of distortion, misrepresentation and bias. In short,
rather then promoting road safety its main aim would seem to be to allow drivers to actually exceed
the current legal limits much of the time without fear of prosecution.
Just what is it with some drivers? Why do they think they should have the god given right to use the
public road as a race track? If they want excitement perhaps they should take up skydiving or rock
climbing, at least they would be putting no one else at risk!
A STUDY IN MISINFORMATION
There is so much ill-informed **** on this site that it is hard to know where to begin. To take the
first 3 pages I looked at:
References are given to an already highly suspect 'Association of British Drivers' document,
supposedly from serving traffic police officers, as if it were unquestionably genuine. (And if it is
genuine then it would seem to reinforce all the old prejudices about the intelligence of some police
officers...).
The 'argument' is made that reducing the speed limit from 20 to 12 MPH would save no lives. Of
course what is conveniently overlooked is that this 'argument' applies only to vehicle drivers when
we really need to be concerned about vulnerable road users who would be less likely to be killed if
speed limits were reduced. In addition the research drawn on clearly shows that for car drivers any
crash at over 70 MPH is very likely to be fatal. A good argument for the current motorway speed
limit methinks...
(And why is it that speed addicts always try give the idea that speed control demands that everyone
drives at 20 MPH on motorways? In reality the number of casualties could be drastically reduced if
everyone drove at a maximum 20 MPH in towns, a maximum of 40 MPH on minor country roads, 30 MPH
through villages and yet still drove at a maximum of 60 MPH on 'A' roads and 70 MPH on motorways).
There is also the rather objectionable assumption that pedestrians and even cyclists are responsible
for their own deaths simply because they venture on road that are some how by right are the sole
province of the drivers of motor vehicles who should have the 'freedom' to be able drive at speeds
that place the lives of others at risk.
One article claims to show a 'logical' proof that there is only the most tenuous link between the
speed of a vehicle and the likelihood that a child who is struck by a vehicle will be killed. No
stop laughing, it really does! From the observation that most car speed in a built up area and that
most children in collision with cars survive it is 'argued' that speeding cannot be a cause of
child deaths.
Apart from ignoring very obvious facts about the effect being struck by a heavy motor vehicle
travelling at speed has on the human body, this bit of simplemindedness ignores other factors such
as the fact that many children are run down by cars which are not speeding. Think about it. Where
are you most likely to find children. In quite residential streets where they are playing, near
schools and so on. Where are are drivers likely to be doing less then 30 MPH , in residential
streets where children are playing and near schools... Hardly a good example of sound logical
reasoning, and of course we do need valid premises for any logical argument to be sound as well...
All the huge raft of information and research showing the link between speed and both the likelihood
of being involved in a crash and the seriousness of the consequences of that crash are ignored or
dismissed.
One slogan of the site is 'Let's make speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving.'
Misinformation campaigns claiming that speed cameras are just there to raise revenue for the police
are applauded and pictures of vandalised speed cameras shown with obvious glee. What more needs to
be said?...
This person really does need an injection of reality into their obviously speed obsessed life.
BACK ON PLANET EARTH...
Fact is almost EVERY fatality on the roads is in some way due to speed. If everyone drove at 10 MPH
there would be very few fatalities.
Whatever the relationship between speed and crash causation, (and the link is very real) it remains
the case that the consequences of any crash are determined by the speed the vehicles were
travelling. It is often claimed that road crashes are 'accidents' and that 'people make mistakes'.
If this is so surely we need to reduce vehicle speeds to a level where all those minor 'mistakes'
have minor rather then serious or fatal consequences?
Yes, it is also important to address bad driving but there can be little argument that it is far
easier to control speed and so minimise the consequences of bad driving, then it is to improve the
skills of the average inept driver.
The relationship between speed and crash frequency is perhaps best thought of in statistical terms.
Current average vehicle speeds see almost 4000 people per year killed and many thousands more
maimed. Unless you argue this is an acceptable level of carnage it must be accepted that these
figures show that current average speeds are too high. Any moves that saw the average rise (such as
raising or scrapping legal speed limits) would see a rise in casualties and any moves that saw
averages fall would see a fall in casualties. Evidence is support of this can be found everywhere,
not least in the effectiveness of 20 MPH zones... (And no, the odd exception due to unusual local
conditions does not disprove the principle.)
Overall the 'Safespeed' site seems not to argue for safe speeds as such but the freedom to be able
to speed where ever one deems this is 'appropriate'. Problem is many speed addicts think 120 MPH on
rural 'A' and 'B' roads is 'appropriate'. This mistaken conviction is reinforced every time they
speed and get away with it. Most speeders are akin to a Russian Roulette player who having fired the
gun 5 times claims the practice is 'safe' on the basis they haven't been killed...
Being able to stop in the distance one can see to be clear is important but is not the be and end
all of road safety, unpredictable events occur. To give a simple example, the road might be straight
and clear for a mile ahead with no other traffic on the road but that does not mean it is safe to
put ones foot down. All it needs is a vehicle to pull out of a junction whose driver has assumed
that car is doing no more than 60...
IN CONCLUSION
Anyhow, that will do for now. Picking this site to bits would be an entertaining and rather easy
exercise but what's the point. As Frank Zappa once said 'The only people you can ever get to agree
with you are those people who already agree with you'. It is also the case that the average selfish,
ill-informed driver will latch onto anything that supports their own narrow minded view of the world
so we shouldn't think that we can change their views with anything as simple as facts or rational
argument...
(One is also drawn to wonder just how often the author of this site applies their 'safe speed'
policy and find themselves driving more slowly then all the uninformed drivers around them who
simply stick to the speed limits, even when these are too high for the conditions. Not often
I'll bet...).
An argument for driving at a 'Safespeed'? No just another example of the 'What I want to do is all
that matters, Fuc*k you society...
Regards
Howard.
http://www.thebikezone.org.uk
look at the 'safespeed' site. Those of a robust constitution might even find it funny. At times
reading it is akin to having a debate about evolution or geology with a creationist it is so bone
headed, simplistic and opinionated!
One might at first be led to think that the author is arguing for motorists to drive at a more
'appropriate' speed which recognises that in many situations the currently legal speed limits are
ridiculously high (especially given that vulnerable road users use the roads as well as airbag and
crumple zone protected car drivers). 'Always be able to stop well within the distance you can see to
be clear' is a good piece of advice that most drivers ignore much of the time. However, a closer
examination of the site shows that it is full of distortion, misrepresentation and bias. In short,
rather then promoting road safety its main aim would seem to be to allow drivers to actually exceed
the current legal limits much of the time without fear of prosecution.
Just what is it with some drivers? Why do they think they should have the god given right to use the
public road as a race track? If they want excitement perhaps they should take up skydiving or rock
climbing, at least they would be putting no one else at risk!
A STUDY IN MISINFORMATION
There is so much ill-informed **** on this site that it is hard to know where to begin. To take the
first 3 pages I looked at:
References are given to an already highly suspect 'Association of British Drivers' document,
supposedly from serving traffic police officers, as if it were unquestionably genuine. (And if it is
genuine then it would seem to reinforce all the old prejudices about the intelligence of some police
officers...).
The 'argument' is made that reducing the speed limit from 20 to 12 MPH would save no lives. Of
course what is conveniently overlooked is that this 'argument' applies only to vehicle drivers when
we really need to be concerned about vulnerable road users who would be less likely to be killed if
speed limits were reduced. In addition the research drawn on clearly shows that for car drivers any
crash at over 70 MPH is very likely to be fatal. A good argument for the current motorway speed
limit methinks...
(And why is it that speed addicts always try give the idea that speed control demands that everyone
drives at 20 MPH on motorways? In reality the number of casualties could be drastically reduced if
everyone drove at a maximum 20 MPH in towns, a maximum of 40 MPH on minor country roads, 30 MPH
through villages and yet still drove at a maximum of 60 MPH on 'A' roads and 70 MPH on motorways).
There is also the rather objectionable assumption that pedestrians and even cyclists are responsible
for their own deaths simply because they venture on road that are some how by right are the sole
province of the drivers of motor vehicles who should have the 'freedom' to be able drive at speeds
that place the lives of others at risk.
One article claims to show a 'logical' proof that there is only the most tenuous link between the
speed of a vehicle and the likelihood that a child who is struck by a vehicle will be killed. No
stop laughing, it really does! From the observation that most car speed in a built up area and that
most children in collision with cars survive it is 'argued' that speeding cannot be a cause of
child deaths.
Apart from ignoring very obvious facts about the effect being struck by a heavy motor vehicle
travelling at speed has on the human body, this bit of simplemindedness ignores other factors such
as the fact that many children are run down by cars which are not speeding. Think about it. Where
are you most likely to find children. In quite residential streets where they are playing, near
schools and so on. Where are are drivers likely to be doing less then 30 MPH , in residential
streets where children are playing and near schools... Hardly a good example of sound logical
reasoning, and of course we do need valid premises for any logical argument to be sound as well...
All the huge raft of information and research showing the link between speed and both the likelihood
of being involved in a crash and the seriousness of the consequences of that crash are ignored or
dismissed.
One slogan of the site is 'Let's make speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving.'
Misinformation campaigns claiming that speed cameras are just there to raise revenue for the police
are applauded and pictures of vandalised speed cameras shown with obvious glee. What more needs to
be said?...
This person really does need an injection of reality into their obviously speed obsessed life.
BACK ON PLANET EARTH...
Fact is almost EVERY fatality on the roads is in some way due to speed. If everyone drove at 10 MPH
there would be very few fatalities.
Whatever the relationship between speed and crash causation, (and the link is very real) it remains
the case that the consequences of any crash are determined by the speed the vehicles were
travelling. It is often claimed that road crashes are 'accidents' and that 'people make mistakes'.
If this is so surely we need to reduce vehicle speeds to a level where all those minor 'mistakes'
have minor rather then serious or fatal consequences?
Yes, it is also important to address bad driving but there can be little argument that it is far
easier to control speed and so minimise the consequences of bad driving, then it is to improve the
skills of the average inept driver.
The relationship between speed and crash frequency is perhaps best thought of in statistical terms.
Current average vehicle speeds see almost 4000 people per year killed and many thousands more
maimed. Unless you argue this is an acceptable level of carnage it must be accepted that these
figures show that current average speeds are too high. Any moves that saw the average rise (such as
raising or scrapping legal speed limits) would see a rise in casualties and any moves that saw
averages fall would see a fall in casualties. Evidence is support of this can be found everywhere,
not least in the effectiveness of 20 MPH zones... (And no, the odd exception due to unusual local
conditions does not disprove the principle.)
Overall the 'Safespeed' site seems not to argue for safe speeds as such but the freedom to be able
to speed where ever one deems this is 'appropriate'. Problem is many speed addicts think 120 MPH on
rural 'A' and 'B' roads is 'appropriate'. This mistaken conviction is reinforced every time they
speed and get away with it. Most speeders are akin to a Russian Roulette player who having fired the
gun 5 times claims the practice is 'safe' on the basis they haven't been killed...
Being able to stop in the distance one can see to be clear is important but is not the be and end
all of road safety, unpredictable events occur. To give a simple example, the road might be straight
and clear for a mile ahead with no other traffic on the road but that does not mean it is safe to
put ones foot down. All it needs is a vehicle to pull out of a junction whose driver has assumed
that car is doing no more than 60...
IN CONCLUSION
Anyhow, that will do for now. Picking this site to bits would be an entertaining and rather easy
exercise but what's the point. As Frank Zappa once said 'The only people you can ever get to agree
with you are those people who already agree with you'. It is also the case that the average selfish,
ill-informed driver will latch onto anything that supports their own narrow minded view of the world
so we shouldn't think that we can change their views with anything as simple as facts or rational
argument...
(One is also drawn to wonder just how often the author of this site applies their 'safe speed'
policy and find themselves driving more slowly then all the uninformed drivers around them who
simply stick to the speed limits, even when these are too high for the conditions. Not often
I'll bet...).
An argument for driving at a 'Safespeed'? No just another example of the 'What I want to do is all
that matters, Fuc*k you society...
Regards
Howard.
http://www.thebikezone.org.uk
