ADUK Archive

This was published today:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/vehicles/intelligentspeedadaptation/

A major step forward for road safety?

regards
P.

Porker wrote:This was published today:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/vehicles/intelligentspeedadaptation/

A major step forward for road safety?

regards
P.

It's not new though is it ?
We've known about this for ages, the trials here & in Europe.
The lead in this is the EU not the UK.

No, it's not new. That said, most people are wholly unaware of it, and publishing the report on a day like today is likely to mean that it gets less attention than it would otherwise do.

Then, when people complain that they didn't know about it, the spokesperson can happily state that the results of the trials were made public for all to see on 15th September 2008 and that little if anything in the way of objections were raised at the time.

Isn't that how it works?

I appreciate also that it's an EU-driven initiative. Another reason to get out as quickly as possible.

P.

If I understood correctly, they estimate a saving from compulsory implementation of this technology of £84 billion by 2070.

I consider that one of the most critical sets of assumptions used in calculating this is about the relationship between speed and crash incidence. I found the following waffle but could not work out what assumptions they had actually used. I do hope that a great deal of intelligence will be applied to a serious study of the analysis rather than taking the conclusions as read. This is what is said about the relationship between speed and crash risk:

"Given the different methodologies used in data collection, the different environments in which the data have been collected and the variety of analytical methods applied to the observed and collected data, it is not surprising that individual studies differ on the precise relationship between speed and crash risk. However, there is broad consensus about the fact that traffic speed or the travel speed of the individual driver is a very major determinant of crash and injury risk, about the fact that risk goes down when speed is reduced and goes up when speed is changed upwards and about the relationship between speed and risk being causal.

There is no single best model in the literature that can be applied for the case of ISA. Rather, there is a choice of models with different levels of advantage and disadvantage for safety prediction concerning ISA. The analyst therefore has to select those models with the fewest disadvantages and interpret the results accordingly."

Without a definition of what they mean by "risk" it's not clear whether they're saying "going faster makes crashes nasty" (somewhat true) or "going faster makes crashes likely" (somewhat *less* true)

Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny

I don't mind a driver aid being made available such as an in-car display of the speed limit applicable to the road on which I'm driving, and me having the option of using that feature, but the actual choice of speed used will be mine, and I don't want that interfered with.

I agree completely with Porker. We ought to get out of the EU ASAP, and in the meantime we tell them we're having nothing to do with their corrupt and grossly extravagent organisation, and they can get stuffed.

Obviously we're stuck with our own government, for the moment, but it too had better start downsizing, and concentrating on the things that governments need to do, and leave us to get on with our lives with a lot less interference.

....and the greedy bu99ers can start reducing the tax take as well!!

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Porker wrote:I appreciate also that it's an EU-driven initiative. Another reason to get out as quickly as possible.

P.

Could you indulge me with some words?

P.

TripleS wrote:I don't mind a driver aid being made available such as an in-car display of the speed limit applicable to the road on which I'm driving, and me having the option of using that feature, but the actual choice of speed used will be mine, and I don't want that interfered with.

What on earth makes you think you will have any choice about any of this.

Fellow IAM Members, I expect the IAM will lobby government against this move. Please remember that when deciding whether you are happy to pay your new increased subscription.

waremark wrote:Fellow IAM Members, I expect the IAM will lobby government against this move. Please remember that when deciding whether you are happy to pay your new increased subscription.

Really? From the tone of recent press releases I think they're more likely to welcome it as an excellent safety initiative

Investment in compulsory driver training and re-examination would probably have a better result. All it will acheive is even more drivers "thinking" that the speed limit is a safe speed in any circumstances.


Mind you, when they reintroduce the man walking in front with a red flag, it will not only reduce sppeds, but also drive down unemployment....

Exactly my thoughts its another move that strips the driver of their control and will make the speed limit safe and a target speed plus.

My main concern is that another electronic gizmo which will cause alot of drivers to disengage from actually driving and observing for hazards.

waremark wrote:

TripleS wrote:I don't mind a driver aid being made available such as an in-car display of the speed limit applicable to the road on which I'm driving, and me having the option of using that feature, but the actual choice of speed used will be mine, and I don't want that interfered with.

What on earth makes you think you will have any choice about any of this.

Fellow IAM Members, I expect the IAM will lobby government against this move. Please remember that when deciding whether you are happy to pay your new increased subscription.

But we don't currently have a choice to exceed the speed limit do we? Unless you are saying we should be free to break the speed limit and the authorities should give us a sporting chance of evading detection.

If a vehicle is limited to the prevailing speed limit then this takes the stress out of having to comply with the limit using acceleration sense and braking, the stress of not knowing what the limit is and of course the stress of looking out for speed cameras.

For those willing to comply with the limit I cannot see the objection other than the personal offence of the authorities suggesting they can't or wont do it on their own.

Naturally we will have the arguments of the need to accelerate out of danger beyond the speed limit as we did with the harm caused by wearing a seat belt 30 years ago.


There are potential difficulties with this, for example, the effect on choosing an appropriate speed below the limit but I would suggest the uproar is likely to come from those determined to speed with impunity and such uproar is more likely to drown out the findings of a proper study of the merits than the 'misinformed' and 'misguided' institutions of the EU.

The other piece of buried news was the intention to increase the number of SPECs cameras throughout the country.

I appreciate the Intelligent Speed process is EU-driven but has anyone done any research on how other member countries are reacting/implementing the proposals?

I read the short version of the highlighted report and I know I have the reputation of being the class pedant when it comes to grammar and spelling but some of the sentences were so strangled, it was almost impossible to interpret the true intention.

I am most worried about the perceived casualty reductions this report has concluded will be achieved. If we accept the majority of drivers as being disinterested, they may be outwardly 'helped' but once responsibility is abdicated to satellites, that majority will inevitably crash into scenery/other vehicles through lack of involvement in the driving task.

I'm with the rabbits on this issue. More carrots please!

KRs
S

jont wrote:

waremark wrote:Fellow IAM Members, I expect the IAM will lobby government against this move. Please remember that when deciding whether you are happy to pay your new increased subscription.

Really? From the tone of recent press releases I think they're more likely to welcome it as an excellent safety initiative

I think waremark was being ironic.

Wouldn't it be good though if the IAM stood up and was vocal about something other than dangerous rural roads, eco-driving, cyclist safety...I can dream...