The Great Speed Awareness Course Scam

Deastons

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Have you reversed into and holes lately?

Oh, I see. You were getting personal and deteriorating into online bullying again.

robatwork

Just fascinated why the OP signed up in 2014 and waited until now for his FULL OF UPPER CASE missive.

Cornucopia

Deastons wrote: »

No. The general public are largely stupid.

I'm not actually sure that they are, in this context. The average driver goes 7 years between accidents (not all of which will be moving vehicle collisions). They will probably be driving in the region of 84,000 miles during that period. That doesn't sound like a lack of driving skill or even of generally dangerous inattention. It doesn't even sound like endemic speeding is actually causing many accidents.

So, the question is: what are the driving issues that could be improved, who is the target audience for messages about those issues, and how do you best engage with that audience?

Based on my observations on real roads, I think that the main problem amongst all drivers is mobile phone use on the move. There are also two specific demographics that I think need special targeting: speed freaks, driving regularly at more than 35% above the safe/legal speed for particular roads; and young drivers (whose accident rate remains significantly higher than average and whose overcrowded, badly driven, badly maintained, small cars often result in disproportionate carnage).

I don't know enough about the issue to know whether holders of non-UK licences are implicated in a greater number of incidents, but I would add them if it were statistically justified. (On the M2 we share the road with a lot of foreign lorry drivers. Some of them are great. Some not so much).

Drive everywhere at 130mph and see how long it is before you die.

You identify those 130mph roads, and I'll bring my speed gun.

Deastons

Cornucopia wrote: »

Based on my observations on real roads, I think that the main problem amongst all drivers is mobile phone use on the move.

I thought this too, but have accidents increased significantly over the last 10yrs? I don't think so.

Cornucopia

Deastons wrote: »

I thought this too, but have accidents increased significantly over the last 10yrs? I don't think so.

No. But it's possible that the causes have changed. I don't know for sure, and I suspect that any official figures will be inaccurate because mobile phone use tends to be hidden from the authorities.

I understand that there has been an increase in drug-driving, although part of that is better detection.

You hint at an alternative approach, which I also favour, which is to use the actual figures from actual accidents to shape road safety policy in a much more proactive way than seems to happen at present.

Knapper

Wow so many people in this thread just totally missing the point about "Speed Kills". Even a military guy testifying that the speed of a bullet makes a difference !


Let me spell it out.


You can shoot a gun 1000 times, any gun, many guns, with bullets flying at different speeds and not a single bullet would kill someone. . . . because the gun is NOT being aimed at anyone.


ONLY when the gun is deliberately or accidentally pointed in the direction of a human, will a death or injury occur.


Therefore it is NOT the speed of a bullet that kills, it is the person who AIMS the gun at another human.


In the context of driving, it is the same. The speed of a vehicle is NOT the thing that kills. It is the driver who drove the car at a pedestrian/cyclist OR it is the pedestrian/cyclist who put themselves in front of a car WITHIN its stopping distance.


Everything else is smoke and mirrors.


This "argument" that you can hit someone at 20mph and only injure them, but hit them at 40mph and kill them is facile. It's ludicrous. It's obviously true that IF you are going to place a pedestrian and moving car in contact with each other then yes one of those 2 outcomes will occur and speed will dictate which, BUT it is NOT the speed that kills, it is the driver or the pedestrian.


Let me be completely clear here.


You can invent ANY scenario you like, car travelling at whatever speed, and nothing will change the fact it's not the speed that kills but the actions of the drive or pedestrian.


Suggesting that we should all drive at 20mph JUST IN CASE someone runs out in front of a car is ridiculous.


There's a stopping distance at 20mph just as there is at every other speed. If you put a pedestrian within the stopping distance for 20mph then again a collision WILL occur. So what then? We all drive at 10mph? But again there's a stopping distance at 10mph and again if a pedestrian steps out within that stopping distance then a collision will occur.


This argument is infinite which is why this concept of "Speed kills" is so horribly weak.


The argument will always come down to the simple premise that no matter what speed a car is doing, a pedestrian can always step out in front of it WITHIN its stopping distance.


Therefore what really matters is that pedestrians don't step out in front of cars within their stopping distance or that drivers don't drive without full care and attention.


Our efforts should go into preventing those things rather than creating what is essentially a multi-million pound speed awareness business that solves absolutely nothing.


I regularly speed just a little over the limits, either accidentally or deliberately. My concentration and effort is focussed on actually driving, steering correctly, being aware of other cars, motorcycles, cyclists and pedestrians around me, focussing on hazards, anticipating what might happen, anticipating what the car in front of me might do, what the car behind me might do and so on.


I've not been involved in an accident for well over 20 yrs when I was a less attentive and experienced driver. Speed is way down on the pecking order in all these driving attributes. That's because SPEED DOES NOT KILL. But inability to focus on all those other things DOES.

Mercdriver

TL;DR yawn

Cornucopia

mercdriver wrote: »

tl;dr yawn

ts;dr

reeac

Knapper wrote: »

Wow so many people in this thread just totally missing the point about "Speed Kills". Even a military guy testifying that the speed of a bullet makes a difference !


Let me spell it out.


You can shoot a gun 1000 times, any gun, many guns, with bullets flying at different speeds and not a single bullet would kill someone. . . . because the gun is NOT being aimed at anyone.


ONLY when the gun is deliberately or accidentally pointed in the direction of a human, will a death or injury occur.


Therefore it is NOT the speed of a bullet that kills, it is the person who AIMS the gun at another human.


In the context of driving, it is the same. The speed of a vehicle is NOT the thing that kills. It is the driver who drove the car at a pedestrian/cyclist OR it is the pedestrian/cyclist who put themselves in front of a car WITHIN its stopping distance.


Everything else is smoke and mirrors.


This "argument" that you can hit someone at 20mph and only injure them, but hit them at 40mph and kill them is facile. It's ludicrous. It's obviously true that IF you are going to place a pedestrian and moving car in contact with each other then yes one of those 2 outcomes will occur and speed will dictate which, BUT it is NOT the speed that kills, it is the driver or the pedestrian.


Let me be completely clear here.


You can invent ANY scenario you like, car travelling at whatever speed, and nothing will change the fact it's not the speed that kills but the actions of the drive or pedestrian.


Suggesting that we should all drive at 20mph JUST IN CASE someone runs out in front of a car is ridiculous.


There's a stopping distance at 20mph just as there is at every other speed. If you put a pedestrian within the stopping distance for 20mph then again a collision WILL occur. So what then? We all drive at 10mph? But again there's a stopping distance at 10mph and again if a pedestrian steps out within that stopping distance then a collision will occur.


This argument is infinite which is why this concept of "Speed kills" is so horribly weak.


The argument will always come down to the simple premise that no matter what speed a car is doing, a pedestrian can always step out in front of it WITHIN its stopping distance.


Therefore what really matters is that pedestrians don't step out in front of cars within their stopping distance or that drivers don't drive without full care and attention.


Our efforts should go into preventing those things rather than creating what is essentially a multi-million pound speed awareness business that solves absolutely nothing.


I regularly speed just a little over the limits, either accidentally or deliberately. My concentration and effort is focussed on actually driving, steering correctly, being aware of other cars, motorcycles, cyclists and pedestrians around me, focussing on hazards, anticipating what might happen, anticipating what the car in front of me might do, what the car behind me might do and so on.


I've not been involved in an accident for well over 20 yrs when I was a less attentive and experienced driver. Speed is way down on the pecking order in all these driving attributes. That's because SPEED DOES NOT KILL. But inability to focus on all those other things DOES.

That's a nonsensical argument. The fatality is the end result of a sequence of events which culminate in the car impacting the person or other car. Once this prerequisite has been met then if the impact velocity is sufficient the person will die. The greater the impact velocity the higher the probability of death. Zero impact velocity results in no death.

Knapper

reeac wrote: »

That's a nonsensical argument. The fatality is the end result of a sequence of events which culminate in the car impacting the person or other car. Once this prerequisite has been met then if the impact velocity is sufficient the person will die. The greater the impact velocity the higher the probability of death. Zero impact velocity results in no death.

Whilst you are correct about the end result, the argument is far from nonsensical. What IS nonsensical, to the point of absurdity is the focus that is being placed on speed in that overall collection of events that leads to an accident. Let me explain it with a different scenario.


The USA is fraught with gun crime. Lots of people have guns, lots of people are being shot by guns and lots of people are being killed or seriously injured by gunshots. What then is a suitable solution to that problem?


The notion that one should change the nature of the guns so that the speed of the bullet is lessened, is utterly absurd. The idea would be total lunacy. The problem is the people with the guns and their willingness to point and fire them at other people. That is where the problem lies. The solution therefore is either to remove the guns, or change the hearts and minds of the people who own them.


Similarly with the problem of accidents involving cars and pedestrians, the notion of trying to fix it by changing the speed of cars is equally absurd. It is not the speed that is causing the accidents it is the drivers and pedestrians. Therefore the solution lies in either taking the cars away from those who don't have the attention and skills to drive them, or to change the hearts and minds of drivers and pedestrians alike.


What we have sadly is simply a gigantic money spinning business focussed on catching people speeding and prosecuting them whether or not they were driving safely or badly. The speed cameras and indeed the 3rd party individuals in the speed detector vans have no interest in assessment of driving ability or whether the driver was safe or reckless. They measure one factor and only one factor, the speed of the car. They do it because frankly it is easy to do, whereas real assessment of driving ability is not so easy, not so readily turned into a money spinning lucrative business. Yet this is where the real problem lies.


With driver ability, the attention to conditions, ability to anticipate, awareness of who and what is around them, constant assessment of road conditions, potential hazards, lane discipline and all the rest.


If anyone were remotely interested in reducing the number of accidents they would focus on those things, not on the speed of the car. But those things are difficult, tricky, and speed is just so stupidly easy to monitor and catch people with and that generates endless victims who they can stiff for £90 a pop to create a multi-million pound business. So that's what they do.


It's a sad world we live in when greed and desire create a business out of road accidents.