Police Speed Guns

oldernonethewiser

Is there a handy link to "death by toilet plunger "stats?

Joe_Horner

oldernonethewiser wrote: »

Is there a handy link to "death by toilet plunger "stats?

They'll be in the RoSPA HASS/LASS databases but, unfortunately, they've now restricted free access so unless some researcher has published on them.

There is this report from Germany a few years back (yeah, right, we believe him!) but, fortunately, most people seem to take plunger safety more seriously than this guy:

https://metro.co.uk/2007/06/01/man-in-unfortunate-bottom-plunger-incident-424240/

Joe_Horner

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

I would say that "6 really close shaves" , "a lot more near misses" and "been involved in countless others where someone else did something really silly that I didn't anticipate well" doesn't match up with your claim of being better at avoiding incidents than many other drivers doesn't hold up to scrutiny and seems to be down to luck and the skill of other drivers more than anything else.

I have been driving for close to 40 years and have only ever had a couple of very close shaves and certainly haven't come close to experiencing "countless others"

On the contrary, it's down to perception of what constitutes a "close shave" and how you see your own part in it.

As it happens there was an example on the way to work yesterday. I was headed out of the village and a young lad in some hatchback came round the bend in the photo (by the nearest house) fully on my side of the road, doing at least 80mph.

The road is two lane, btw, it just happens that the latest streetview was after they resurfaced and hadn't repainted the lines. I've got the positioning as close as i can to where I was by the time he'd regained his side of the road so you can see the comfortable margin of "missing".

Now, had I left a few seconds earlier, or not stopped to let a car through a narrow part in the village, that "comfortable miss" would have disappeared and there's no way we would have avoided each other.

So, to me, that counts as a "near miss" even though we passed quite safely by a country mile.

He was clearly at fault (way too fast and completely the wrong side of the road) and there's no way I could have avoided him apart from the luck of the timing.

If he had hit me, no-one would have said there was anything I could have done.

Except.....

Reviewing what happened as I drove on my merry way, if you look where I've drawn the red circle you can see the road at the next corner beyond the blind bend. So I had ample opportunity to notice him (which I did), and notice that he was going very fast (which I didn't).

I know the bend (I drive that road every day) and, if I'd registered his speed, I would have known he couldn't possibly get round it that fast without straightening it, so I could and should have anticipated what happened and slowed enough to make sure he was round the bend well before I got there.

By my definitions, that was a near miss caused by my failure to anticipate.

Would you even have counted it as a near miss?

Mercdriver

Joe_Horner wrote: »

The problem with that argument is that it assumes that a good driver can't anticipate and avoid the stupidity of others. Which is setting the standard for "good" way too low and much closer to the dire standards that are out there at the moment.

A very simple start to that anticipating is to notice that there are pedestrians / children / baskets of kittens about, or things blocking visibility of where they might be (parked cars, corners and so on), to recognise that they might do something stupid, and to slow down (quite possibly to well below an arbitrary 30!) - and / or give extra space in case.

But, once you're past that hazard, you don't need to stay at that speed if there isn't another hazard ahead.


Like I say: good drivers, not just barely adequate ones.

The trouble with this line of thinking is how many people would answer no to the question: "Are you a good driver?" Having no or fewer accidents is not necessarily indicative of the abilities or otherwise of the driver.

Joe_Horner

Mercdriver wrote: »

The trouble with this line of thinking is how many people would answer no to the question: "Are you a good driver?"

When I become despotic ruler I hae the solution to that.

(1) A comprehensive, reliable and cheap public transport system so that no-one needs to drive.

(2) Insurance for damage to cars while being driven to be made illegal. So, if your'e involved in an accident it's going to cost you. That'll sharpen the senses! Injury and damage to stationary objects will, of course, still be insured.

(3) If you're involved in an accident, regardless of "fault", you get to do a (paid) refresher course on observation and anticipation. Not optional.

(3A) Once every 3 years you can also ask to take a refresher for free if you wish. This will be optional but encouraged.

(4) If you're involved in two accidents, regardless of fault, you get to resit your test. Not optional.

(5) If you're involved in a third, regardless of fault, you get to hand in your licence permanently. Not optional.

(6) If you're partially at fault in an accident you skip the next step. So, if it's your first you get a test. If it's your second (so you've already had a refresher) you're on the busses.

(7) If you're significantly at fault in an accident you go straight to step (5)

(8) Driving without a licence is immediate imprisonment.


The genuinely good drivers will soon bubble to the top, and the rest can enjoy their reliable and regular bus services



I'm also considering public flogging for antisocial behaviour....

TooManyPoints

(4) If you're involved in two accidents, regardless of fault, you get to resit your test. Not optional.

(5) If you're involved in a third, regardless of fault, you get to hand in your licence permanently. Not optional.

So if somebody rear-ends you three times whilst you're stationary at the lights, that's it then??? :huh::huh:

I'm also considering public flogging for antisocial behaviour....

Perfectly reasonable. :rotfl:

Joe_Horner

TooManyPoints wrote: »

So if somebody rear-ends you three times whilst you're stationary at the lights, that's it then??? :huh::huh:

Yep, afraid so - you're clearly just too "unlucky" to be on the road.

But do bear in mind that, by the second or third time, the person who rear-ends you the third probably won't because there's a good chance they will have already learnt to be more careful or lost their licence permanently.

So you'll be fine

Perfectly reasonable. :rotfl:

I thinks so

buglawton

Monkey22 wrote: »

I do fully support them using the guns and cameras, it’s just it felt a bit on the side of trying to catch out genuine mistakes, the hills EXTREMELY long and steep, and she was round the corner at the very bottom... I understand no one should speed but if someone didn’t quite hit the breaks in time it’d be very easy to get a few MPH over, and I have personally seen a nip for 32mph which my friend got, ironically from the fixed camera on the same road

Some countries (I think including Australia) have 'countdown' signs for exactly the situations where people are coming out of a high speed limit into a low one where the low limit sign can't easily be seen way in advance. Britain doesn't have these, like it also doesn't have 'number of seconds to go' traffic lights that would save fuel and pollution.

The position in the UK seems to be that if there's a way for the authorities to make a few bob from folks mistakes, 'nothing to see here'.

AdrianC

How far away are change-of-limit signs visible? What more notice do you need?

buglawton

AdrianC wrote: »

How far away are change-of-limit signs visible? What more notice do you need?

I remember them being spaced like the UK motorway exit 3 - 2 - 1 bars.