matt_d

There's a thing on one of those speedtrap forums (think it's ukspeedtraps.co.uk) where they give the "police view" on speed, and they quote one copper's description of an accident:

"In the late summer of 1998 I had stopped a driver of a Subaru Impreza for driving very fast along a country road in Oxfordshire, a "decent chap" who suffered my words of wisdom. I was aware however that he was not really listening to me. He had a racing background and knew how to handle the car?

As I spoke to him two cars travelling in opposing directions had a head on collision directly in front of where we were standing. A closing impact speed of 100-120 mph.

One of the drivers lost an arm and another his sight permanently. He technically died three times on route to hospital and will carry the legacy of the high speed with him for the rest of his life.

The driver of the Subaru? Well needless to say he opened his eyes and really saw what happens when things go wrong. It is sad that the only way to reach some people is for them to experience the reality of a high-speed impact? I do not recommend it to anyone."

I was just thinking, but surely this shows that speed limits are not the answer, since it is the speeder (highly skilled driver) who is sat safely in his car whilst one and possibly two clearly bad drivers have just been seriously injured whilst OBEYING THE SPEED LIMIT. How on earth did the copper conclude that speeding caused this crash when they were doing below 60mph by his own admission? Funny how he dismisses the Subaru driver's "racing background" whereas that experience probably means he was driving much safer safer at (I assume) 80+ than the other people at 50-60.

It just goes to show not only is 80 vs 60 not the issue, but that many supposedly trained traffic police have completely mistaken views about road safety and the effect of speed and speed limits. The accident only proved that driver error can have very serious results. It also suggested that, had society trained the two drivers even anywhere near as well as the driver of the Subaru, two people would still be in fine health today instead of seriously injured. But instead the government and many senior police constables think that punishing speeders is the right way forward, even if they are in complete control of a very safe and competent car, and drive pretty safely.

NIGE K

Matt
I reckon some driver retraining such as a test every 5 years would sort out a lot of the dangerous drivers on the road at the moment. ? but would it win any votes!!!!

NigeK

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

Interesting article matt_d, I counldn't agree with you more.

Wurzel

RichS

Well said matt.

Totally agree.

Rich

Hoppy

Matt, interesting quote and thought-provoking comments.

I have to confess to being a complete hypocrite on this subject, ie it's fine for me to speed - because like you I'm a brilliant driver - but not for anyone else as they're stupid and dangerous.

But it doesn't stack up, does it? I/we can't have it both ways and if it came to a vote for upping the speed limit to 100mph I would vote against it. There would be carnage.

The problem is the vast majority of drivers aren't very good, very bad in fact. They just don't know when it's dangerous or when it's safe to go fast. (And they've now swapped their Volvos for a big tank of a bullet-proof 4x4.) It is obviously impossible to make everyone into a really good driver, so the only way of reducing casualties is to try and ensure that when they do crash, as crash they will, the damage is minimised.

What really, REALLY annoys me is the constant assertion that "speed kills" as if the car wheels will automatically fall off the moment you hit x mph. Oh, and you'll instantly be branded a psychopath and more dangerous to society than a multiple axe murderer.

EXCESSIVE speed kills, and that can be anything between 2mph and 200mph-plus, depending on the circumstances. Trouble is, that message is far too complicated for Mr & Mrs Four-by-Four to grasp.

The other thing that is well out of order is speed cameras concealed to catch you out, with revenue generation being the priority, not accident reduction. To be fair, most cameras around my way are put in accident prone locations (though not all) but why are they not painted bright yellow to highlight the hazard? The most effective speed camera is one that never takes a single picture, but it wouldn't generate any money, either.

I try really hard not to break the speed limit, not because I believe it's necessarily right but because it's the law, I can't change it and I need my licence.

Thank God for track days.

Richard Hopkins

Dave P

This is a letter I wrote to my local rag a few months ago. It got published (well most of it)

Sussex Police clampdown on SPEEDING. Tunbridge Wells has four new SPEED cameras. SPEED KILLS are today’s buzzwords.

However it isn’t just about changing attitudes to speed, it's about changing the way we drive and the way we behave as pedestrians. A driver tailgating is as dangerous at 25mph as he is at 39mph. A pedestrian crossing the road 10 feet from a zebra crossing with a five-year-old child in tow well judge yourself.

To encourage speed reduction, we must ensure the cynicism that surrounds Speed Traps is removed. For example is there any reason the GATSO's in Southborough hide behind traffic signs? To respond to a warning you have to see it first. South Yorkshire Police now publish the sites of their mobile speed cameras. In the words of the Head of their Traffic department, "We want people to slow down. If we don't catch anyone speeding, by publicising where our speed cameras will be, then we will have succeeded."

To encourage a change in driving attitudes, the solution must be driver education. A 4-point endorsement handed to a 17-year-old for exceeding the speed limit will not change the way he drives. What if Council’s diverted their new, GATSO fine income to Police Forces to provide advanced driver training to excessive speeders.

Pedestrians are the final link. Ideally the pedestrian uses the pavement and the car uses the road. Crashes (accident, implies no one was at fault) occur when the two meet. The Government aim to reduce child fatalities by 50%. I remember The Tufty Club, The Green Cross Code Man and a Policeman at school with his blue soap pig. This type of education is a social responsibility, not just a parental one, but where is it now? And how about fines for Jaywalking to encourage pedestrians off the road.

To concentrate on speed alone is both naive and dangerous, the real buzzwords should be “On a Road, then Think Safe, Be safe”.

My thoughts anyway. Interestingly not one person wrote a letter commenting on mine, and I wrote a covering letter to the paper suggesting they follow up on the subject... nothing...

Once again in this country we bitch and moan but never get off our ***** to change things.

Dave

polarbearit

Highly visible speed cameras, which are well posted and ideally yellow should be the types allowed. Covert cameras are just another way of generating further revenue, be it for the local authority or the government.

Speed isn't the primary cause of accidents, bad driving is, so driver retraining is surely a good thing, not particularly for speeders, but for anyone.

There current campaign to "Make Speeding as Socially Unacceptable as Drink Driving" is just another way of increasing tax on the motorist.

Some speeding is unacceptable, eg, most speeding in built up areas. However I am the 1st to admit to speeding on the motorway, I judging by the speed that everyone else travels either the governments policy is to be a clear vote looser or they don't realise how fast they go.

I think better MOT tests which prohibit semi lethal cars from passing is a good start, as is driver retraining.

We have relatively safe roads in the UK, unless you car is parked, when it is more likely to be broken in to than any other country. Lets address these issues proportionately, catching more people speed, WILL make more people drive without insurance. Catching more thieves WILL reduce car crime.

Here is a ironic point and unfortuate point, someone caught doing 105 mph on a motorway is often more severly punished than someone who nicks your car and drives it a 105 mph on the motorway (+without insurance). Where's the sense?

Hoppy

Another thought.

The way things are going, a lot more people are going to get banned for going through one too many speed traps too quickly.

That means they can't drive. Well, it doesn't actually. What it means is that they can't drive legally and they wont have any insurance cover. But they can still drive.

Now that IS a scary prospect.

Richard Hopkins