Speeding? Manned equipment.

brat

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

So what do you suggest, different speed limits for different drivers??

Different drivers do choose their own speeds, some will be happy to stick at 65mph on the motorway, others choose 80. One is illegal, the other legal, yet no evidence to indicate that one speed is less safe than another.

To answer your question, I'd suggest that we should use speed cameras as safety cameras. We should hide them, make them moveable. Take them into places where speed really causes harm, and ask them to enforce inappropriate speeds rather than marginal safe speeds. Unfortunately it's the marginal 'safe speeds' that are the money spinner.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Or leave it up to the driver to decide, so that those who wrongly class themselves as good drivers (even though their awareness is so bad that they can't spot a speed camera van)??

Most compliant drivers in town respect the speed limit. they tend not to want to be seen as law breakers. Mostly their speed is determined by driving hazard frequency and definition, and they are uninterested in driving at inappropriate speeds. In other words, they are no different to you and I.
Camera vans are not a driving hazard, more like a non-driving hazard, in that they shouldn't distract a motorist from their core role of safe driving, and no extra attention should have to be paid to them. A good, safe compliant driver shouldn't be required to identify them as anything other than a parked vehicle at the roadside. If such a driver is being occasionally caught by these cameras marginally exceeding the limit, then the road safety (not road legality) compromise is the fault of the camera positioning rather than the quality of the driving.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

By the way, most injuries in RTCs are caused by speed differential, not just speed. In other words, the closing speed between two vehicles, or a vehicle and an object/pedestrian that it collides with.

Impulse is the term we use for this. Impulse is the change in momentum over a period of time. This is why many of the fatal accidents on the motorway involve the slowest vehicles (HGVs), because mass is a big part of impulse.

And we are not just talking about external injuries, or broken bones. If a vehicle hits a solid object at lets say 70mph, then the passengers internal organs will continue to try and carry on moving at 70mph (minus a certain amount of speed absorbed by crumple zones), causing massive internal injuries. This is a very common cause of fatalities in RTCs. And this is why certain criteria for hazards at the roadside have been brought in for determining speed limits.

This is why drivers need to be trusted to feel they have a responsibility to assess the appropriate speed for a given situation, especially when that appropriate speed is way less than the speed limit. The more often it is implied to motorists that the arbitrary limit is the safe parameter, the more likely we are to become unconditioned in the art of assessing appropriate speeds below the limit. We are also less likely to properly immerse ourselves into optimal safe driving if, too often, we have to emerge from that zone to check that the reduced hazard definition hasn't caused our speed to creep over an ever more draconian margin of tolerance.

It's not a simple problem, and it is not well served by an oversimplified remedy.

Jamie_Carter

Froggitt wrote: »

Don't worry......my awareness has been shifted from nuns and kittens and kids to camera vans now.

If you are not capable of awareness of all hazards, then you shouldn't be driving.

Jamie_Carter

brat wrote: »

Different drivers do choose their own speeds, some will be happy to stick at 65mph on the motorway, others choose 80. One is illegal, the other legal, yet no evidence to indicate that one speed is less safe than another.

To answer your question, I'd suggest that we should use speed cameras as safety cameras. We should hide them, make them moveable. Take them into places where speed really causes harm, and ask them to enforce inappropriate speeds rather than marginal safe speeds. Unfortunately it's the marginal 'safe speeds' that are the money spinner.



Most compliant drivers in town respect the speed limit. they tend not to want to be seen as law breakers. Mostly their speed is determined by driving hazard frequency and definition, and they are uninterested in driving at inappropriate speeds. In other words, they are no different to you and I.
Camera vans are not a driving hazard, more like a non-driving hazard, in that they shouldn't distract a motorist from their core role of safe driving, and no extra attention should have to be paid to them. A good, safe compliant driver shouldn't be required to identify them as anything other than a parked vehicle at the roadside. If such a driver is being occasionally caught by these cameras marginally exceeding the limit, then the road safety (not road legality) compromise is the fault of the camera positioning rather than the quality of the driving.



Impulse is the term we use for this. Impulse is the change in momentum over a period of time. This is why many of the fatal accidents on the motorway involve the slowest vehicles (HGVs), because mass is a big part of impulse.



This is why drivers need to be trusted to feel they have a responsibility to assess the appropriate speed for a given situation, especially when that appropriate speed is way less than the speed limit. The more often it is implied to motorists that the arbitrary limit is the safe parameter, the more likely we are to become unconditioned in the art of assessing appropriate speeds below the limit. We are also less likely to properly immerse ourselves into optimal safe driving if, too often, we have to emerge from that zone to check that the reduced hazard definition hasn't caused our speed to creep over an ever more draconian margin of tolerance.

It's not a simple problem, and it is not well served by an oversimplified remedy.

This post has just proved that you are not a police officer as you claim to be.


Why are you pretending to be something that you clearly aren't??

Froggitt

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

If you are not capable of awareness of all hazards, then you shouldn't be driving.

You're right of course. I should be able to see round bends and through solid obstacles. Please sign me up for voluntary euthanasia, which as a bonus, will cure my incessant drooling.

Captain_Flack.

Froggitt wrote: »

You're right of course. I should be able to see round bends and through solid obstacles. Please sign me up for voluntary euthanasia, which as a bonus, will cure my incessant drooling.

Be fair you should be aware of the speed you are travelling at and you weren't when you were caught.

brat

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

This post has just proved that you are not a police officer as you claim to be.


Why are you pretending to be something that you clearly aren't??

If my primary interest is road safety, can you please provide a road safety argument against anything I've written, that would provide you with evidence to support your contention that I'm not who I say I am.
I've convinced the other police officers on this site of my credentials. You dislike me for your own reasons, I can't help that, but none of it makes any difference to what I do for a living.

Captain_Flack.

brat wrote: »

If my primary interest is road safety, can you please provide a road safety argument against anything I've written, that would provide you with evidence to support your contention that I'm not who I say I am.
I've convinced the other police officers on this site of my credentials. You dislike me for your own reasons, I can't help that, but none of it makes any difference to what I do for a living.

You've convinced members you're willing to hang on the coat tails of others and claim the credit. You've lost all credibility.

RichardD1970

Yet another motoring thread turned into a willy waving contest with brat and Jamie Carter. With help from Captain Flack, because a 3 way is always better

Captain_Flack.

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Yet another motoring thread turned into a willy waving contest with brat and Jamie Carter. With help from Captain Flack, because a 3 way is always better

Thanks for your input, you obviously have nothing to add.

RichardD1970

Captain_Flack. wrote: »

Thanks for your input, you obviously have nothing to add.

Ohh, touched a nerve :rotfl:

No I have nothing to constructive to add, you are right.

It just get boring on this area of the Forum seeing the same posters going round and round in circles endlessly.