Very dangerous roads

[TripleS]

Until yesterday I hadn't realised that the M4 from Newbury to Reading is one of the most dangerous roads in Britain.

Gareth, this is too abstruse for those not with you yesterday. What is this about?

I'm assuming "safety" cameras on/over the M'way.

Perhaps Gareth was thinking not only of the potential damage to wallet and licence, but the effect they have on other drivers, sudden braking etc.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Gareth]

Perhaps Gareth was thinking not only of the potential damage to wallet and licence, but the effect they have on other drivers, sudden braking etc.

I was mainly thinking about the big lie told when the introduction of speed cameras was first being discussed, that they would only be used at points where there was a particular high risk of accident.

I was also thinking about the other lie, that of clearly marking such vans. The position on the bridge over the motorway was significantly higher than any motorist would reasonably be expected to be scanning, and there were no advance warning signs either.

These days safe motorists need to be scanning well away from the road to spot such devices, purely because then they can be forewarned that other less observant drivers may brake suddenly in what would otherwise appear an errratic manner.

This makes me think that road safety was quite a low priority in the minds of whoever had arranged for the van to be in that position.

[Nigel]

Weren't they put there because the local scamera mob cocked up a few times and had to refund lots of money ?

[7db]

Any chance of a view on the advanced driving implications of these hazards?

I can read about how they are awful on PH...

[Nigel]

Any chance of a view on the advanced driving implications of these hazards?

I can read about how they are awful on PH...

Feel free, want a link to the site ?

[7db]

Sorry my point being that it's perhaps more interesting here to talk about how to handle these things as hazards:- recognising that other motorists are likely to be panic braking *much* later than you spot them, when they finally notice them, and cause bunching up, and that you can ameliorate that by creating space and making room for other motorists to make mistakes.

[Nigel]

You could indeed.

You could also talk about how when the muppets brake, that by using your braking distance to avoid a collision you could be caught by one of the new generation of tailgating scameras that Von tells us are being trialed in Oxfordshire.

I'm afriad I think the presence of these scameras does more to harm road safety than promote it.

[vonhosen]

You could indeed.

You could also talk about how when the muppets brake, that by using your braking distance to avoid a collision you could be caught by one of the new generation of tailgating scameras that Von tells us are being trialed in Oxfordshire.

I'm afriad I think the presence of these scameras does more to harm road safety than promote it.

It's not an inanimate object that is dangerous, it's the reaction to it.

If a driver is distracted by an attractive young lady walking down the street, it is not the attractive young lady at fault.

If people behave dangerously because of cameras then perhaps the answer would be to not paint them yellow & make them conspicuous. Instead perhaps they should be hidden from sight completely.

[7db]

If a driver is distracted by an attractive young lady walking down the street, it is not the attractive young lady at fault.

There's not enough of this kind of hazard on my commute. I think I need more practice.

[Advanced Roadcraft]

You could indeed.

You could also talk about how when the muppets brake, that by using your braking distance to avoid a collision you could be caught by one of the new generation of tailgating scameras that Von tells us are being trialed in Oxfordshire.

I'm afriad I think the presence of these scameras does more to harm road safety than promote it.

It's not an inanimate object that is dangerous, it's the reaction to it.

If a driver is distracted by an attractive young lady walking down the street, it is not the attractive young lady at fault.

If people behave dangerously because of cameras then perhaps the answer would be to not paint them yellow & make them conspicuous. Instead perhaps they should be hidden from sight completely.

While I totally agree that, "It's not an inanimate object that is dangerous, it's the reaction to it", does it not seem bizarre that we choose to continue to increase the number of these man-made inanimate objects? It's not like they are naturally ocurring like trees!

Even when we are aware that "people behave dangerously because of cameras" we then place them deliberately in areas of high accident statistics (or, at least, so it is said) which must surely increase the potential danger in those very areas that could do with a reduction in hazards?

[Big Err]

["people behave dangerously because of cameras"

Is it dangerous, careless or inconsiderate?

[jont]

["people behave dangerously because of cameras"

Is it dangerous, careless or inconsiderate?

Given the pandering to lowest common denominators (as mentioned in another thread), I would imagine for some drivers their reaction is indeed dangerous.

[Advanced Roadcraft]

["people behave dangerously because of cameras"

Is it dangerous, careless or inconsiderate?

It's (at least) inconsiderate of the driver who brakes as a Pavlovian reaction to a camera when s/he is alrady travelling below the limit; it's careless of those who brake as a 'required' reaction to a camera they have seen too late when knowingly travelling over the limit; it's dangerous for the tailgater behind either of them!

IMNSHO, of course

[SamD]

You could indeed.

You could also talk about how when the muppets brake, that by using your braking distance to avoid a collision you could be caught by one of the new generation of tailgating scameras that Von tells us are being trialed in Oxfordshire.

I'm afriad I think the presence of these scameras does more to harm road safety than promote it.

It's not an inanimate object that is dangerous, it's the reaction to it.

If a driver is distracted by an attractive young lady walking down the street, it is not the attractive young lady at fault.

If people behave dangerously because of cameras then perhaps the answer would be to not paint them yellow & make them conspicuous. Instead perhaps they should be hidden from sight completely.

Wouldn't more subterfuge encourage even twitchier feet over the brake pedal? Tricky to make cameras completely invisible.

Lets think about this from a different angle. As an NHS 'person', my take on speed cameras is that of medicine or treatment for the road. Doctors prescribe a huge range of medicines which have variable impact on a huge range of conditions. Sometimes a drug will help a bit, sometimes it will completely cure, sometimes it will interact dangerously or in some cases lead to side effects which do more harm than good.

In any case there is a very rigourous scientific process begining in the pharma industry's drug development journey which looks at the safety and appropriateness of any drug treatment.

My belief is that given that the public's safety is at stake we haven't sought to fully understand the impact of speed enforcement (hidden or otherwise) on the (visual/attentioanal) cognitive performance of the driver. I am perfectly open to the possibility that there may not be any dangerous attentional defecit to speak of by deploying speed cameras because drivers are flexible enough to compensate. I am also perfectly open to the possibility that speed cameras (whether in plain sight or invisible) will divert some of the finite attentional resource that drivers have away from hazard identification.

But as far as I am aware, this hasn't happened. I see no randomised controlled trials. I see no quantification on driving simulators of the relationship between human performance and task irrelevant cognition (scanning for speed cameras/excessive speedo checks). The technology is available and a 3rd year psychology undergraduate could probably write the methodology. There is scant attention to any research question other than 'do cameras' reduce KSIs?' -A fair question that we still haven't developed truly reliable methodology to answer.

So do we blindly encourage the proliferation of cameras, reassured that any negative effects are just collateral given that the road safety cause is so very noble? Or do we seek to understand their impact on human performance properly, thereby confronting and quantifying the uncomfortably complex notion that the camera 'drug' might help sometimes, might not help at other times and may do more harm than good for some drivers at some times in some places?

[Nigel]

A very good post Sam.

I'm not as clever as some, so I'd suggest we just get rid of them