ADUK Archive

Horse wrote:By driving faster, what does that do to our safety? If it means we travel faster while overtaking, or passing other hazards, then we - even if for a short duration - may well increase other risks to offset another.

we can't tell - in some cases increase safety, in others decrease it... yes, it could increase some risks to offset others - this is the point I am making - it is a phenomenally complex set of factors in any equation you could draw up... which is why we can't state slower = safety as an absolute

Horse wrote:

akirk wrote:And as advanced drivers we should be driving our car for the whole scenario - ie we should be conscious of and take into account not just ourselves and the road, but other road users and those around...

But that's not the thread. This is simply 'Relationship between speed and safety'.

Exactly...
and the assumptions being made are taking the speed = safety concept out of context - assuming that it is all about one car out of the context of reality and real life scenarios...

but it is not - therefore as advanced drivers we should be driving in the context of others, and therefore adjusting our speed as appropriate to the safest option, whether remaining the same / slowing down, or speeding up

Alasdair

Gareth wrote:

Horse wrote:Which bit of this is incorrect?

exposure to fewer hazards in the same timespan, with shorter reaction distances and stopping distances

How can that not be safer?

Oh, an easy question I can answer! If, as a result of being forced to travel slower, a driver is bored and/or paying less attention.

+1.

I damaged a permanent bollard near Strand/Embankment station due to

1) I was paying less attention than I should have because I was driving slower than average, and

2) the radar on the S-Class did not pick up the bollard and stopped the car because the bollard was only 1 foot tall and the car didn't see it.

Therefore, I would not classify lower speed in build up areas increase safety.

We should all be forced to drive cars with defective brakes, bald tyres, and erratic handling characteristics. That would cause us to pay attention, prevent us from getting bored, and therefore be safer.

petes wrote:We should all be forced to drive cars with defective brakes, bald tyres, and erratic handling characteristics. That would cause us to pay attention, prevent us from getting bored, and therefore be safer.

Nah, just replace airbags with a 4 ft spike behind the steering wheel that pops out if you crash

jont wrote:

petes wrote:We should all be forced to drive cars with defective brakes, bald tyres, and erratic handling characteristics. That would cause us to pay attention, prevent us from getting bored, and therefore be safer.

Nah, just replace airbags with a 4 ft spike behind the steering wheel that pops out if you crash

Or drive Smart Cars. Accident = certain death.

petes wrote:Or drive Smart Cars. Accident = certain death.

No - the Smart ForTwo has a 4 star (out of 5) Euroncap rating

http://www.euroncap.com/en/results/smart/fortwo/7894

I suppose you might die of embarrassment though

I would genuinely be in favour of retesting, and I would advocate graduated licenses.

I would also try to encourage the proliferation of learning to drive, off the public roads, and make all those disused airfields productive again.

When you first start learning to drive, you go to the off road places and learn the basics, (car control, mirror checks etc etc) and then you pass a test before you're allowed a provisional license, then you can go on the road with a supervisor (same system as now) then you pass your test when you're ready (no time limits on how long you can spend "learning").
When you've passed a test, you're allowed to drive unsupervised,however, there is a restriction on how powerful a car you can drive etc etc, then you have to have a retest in 2 years, and if you've passed the retest, you're upgraded to a full license for another 4 years, then 4 yearly retests after that.

If you go on to do an advanced test, you can get awarded privileges. I haven't thought about what they could be

Political suicide for the government that introduces it though.

fungus wrote:Political suicide for the government that introduces it though.

All we need is for Prince 'Baron Samedi' Charles to suggest to Andy “I have the honour to remain, Sir, your Royal Highness’s most humble and obedient servant.” Burnham or Yvette Cooper (future labour leadership candidates?) to lobby one way or the other and they'll have their mission all laid out for them. We, on the other hand, will have what we're bloody well given. It's not a democracy you know!

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... unding-nhs

http://jamesbond.wikia.com/wiki/Baron_S ... _Holder%29

fungus wrote:Political suicide for the government that introduces it though.

Absent a desire by the public to improve driving standards the authorities are left with little option other than to slow everything down.

akirk wrote:...but as shown in detail above, rarely is everything else equal, so lower speed = safer is a theoretical concept only - it is not reality...

Alasdair

The fact that everything isn't equal is the reason why slower is better. Your pedestrian may have emerged at a different point and in front of you rather than into the side of you. As you don't know where and when he will emerge and cannot control whether or not you will need to stop, slower must be better.

MGF wrote:

akirk wrote:...but as shown in detail above, rarely is everything else equal, so lower speed = safer is a theoretical concept only - it is not reality...

Alasdair

The fact that everything isn't equal is the reason why slower is better. Your pedestrian may have emerged at a different point and in front of you rather than into the side of you. As you don't know where and when he will emerge and cannot control whether or not you will need to stop, slower must be better.

but that is a dangerous argument - because based on that we would simply get rid of cars / transport / mobility / life / etc.

reality is about balancing compromise - not persuing one concept out ouf context to its logical conclusion...

yes it might be argued that it is better to have a motorway speed limit of 70 than of 200 but to use that logic to suggest that 60 is better than 70 / 50 better than 60 / etc. would be nonsensical - equally there is a good argument that 80 might be better than 70 - so slower is not always better

Alasdair

Having read the responses to this post, I agree with MGF's sentiment that in the non-ideal world we live in, slower must mean safer.

I'd actually be as bold as to say that anyone who cannot understand such basic reasoning really isn't fit to drive.

The fact that YOU may be an advanced driver and feel safe and comfortable driving at higher speeds doesn't change the fact that for the general masses, accidents can happen, and when they do, the consequences are more severe is the vehicles involved are travelling faster. Simple.

petes wrote:Having read the responses to this post, I agree with MGF's sentiment that in the non-ideal world we live in, slower must mean safer.

I'd actually be as bold as to say that anyone who cannot understand such basic reasoning really isn't fit to drive.

The fact that YOU may be an advanced driver and feel safe and comfortable driving at higher speeds doesn't change the fact that for the general masses, accidents can happen, and when they do, the consequences are more severe is the vehicles involved are travelling faster. Simple.

How are you getting on with your application to join the Brake team? FWIW I think your prospects there would be pretty good.

More seriously, if there are going to be mishaps, then, generally speaking, the lower the speed the less damaging will be the consequences: I think that's a fairly safe thing to say. Having accpted that, I think the relationship between speed and safety is a very loose one, and that's why some may choose to use high speed at times, but so long as they do it with proper awareness and care, and in appropriate circumstances, I see nothing wrong with it, apart from the legal aspect of course. Still, if we're to retain a bit of freedom, independence and humanness (is there such a word?), we can't comply with all the rules all the time. Well OK then, I can't!

Best wishes all,
Dave.

petes wrote:I agree with MGF's sentiment that in the non-ideal world we live in, slower must mean safer.

I'd actually be as bold as to say that anyone who cannot understand such basic reasoning really isn't fit to drive.

So where do you draw the line? What speed limits should apply in which circumstances? How do you justify different speed limits?