Re: warning speed camera

Absolutely.

The overview of mobile phone and driving research by RoSPA is a more reliable and much broader reference source:

From experience I believe that the degree of danger arising from mobile phone use varies wildly from driver to driver.

Personally I cannot drive and conduct a telephone conversation. My vision "drops" to dangerous degree almost immediately. It's too bid an effect to try to compensate for and I never use the phone while driving.

But someone I know - another advanced driver - appears to be completely unaffected.

It's a complex problem, and there's no easy solution. I don't believe that the forthcoming ban will be effective in any sense, not least because they are already projecting detecting 120,000 offences in the first year of the ban - but beyond that they are not banning hands-free phones, which are clearly equally dangerous.

I maintain a web page about phoning and driving - but it has not been updated since the consultation results were published.

In message , Paul Smith writes

No it doesn't. Are you in some sort of denial? Its there for everyone to see:-

"WE THINK THE BENEFIT OF DRIVING A COUPLE OF MILES PER HOUR SLOWER WILL BE ENTIRELY NEGATED.."

You'll be telling me next that the holocaust didn't happen.

Looks fine to me. Sums up what your site is all about i.e. being able to drive everywhere faster and to hell about the consequences for everyone else.

In alt.uk.law Paul Smith writted:

: The overview of mobile phone and driving research by RoSPA is a more : reliable and much broader reference source:

:

It's certainly more comprehensive, and it's a depressing read - particularly the case studies - but I'm afraid that I don't propose to follow this through - my only purpose in posting was to interject a figure that could be subtantiated into what appeared to be a guessing game. The only thing I have to comment on is that the Violante study appears to be the only one that tackles actual RTA data and gives a measure of the increase in risk, other studies take the simpler approach of measuring how many accidents involved mobile phones, which is a meaningless number if taken in isolation.

ATB, Gavin

In message , Paul Smith writes

There is nothing wrong with my comprehension. Misrepresentation my arse! It is there in black and white. In your own words:

WE THINK THE BENEFIT OF DRIVING A COUPLE OF MILES PER HOUR SLOWER WILL BE ENTIRELY NEGATED.."

You are trying (unsuccessfully) to wriggle out of the fact that you are advocating higher speeds in areas where children are present. It is utterly despicable.

Read it in full here:

In message , Wizard writes

OK, here's the full paragraph. It is still trying to say that increased speeds near kids are not dangerous.

"As for slow down messages and further increases in speed enforcement we think the benefit of driving a couple of miles per hour slower will be entirely negated by a) reduced attention from the driver in general and b) the enhanced risk of driving blind while more speedometer checks are made. Case 1 and Case 2 above illustrate the point. Driving at 5 mph over the speed limit tends to make little difference in the real world. There's also the risk that present road safety strategies are making drivers less attentive to the road ahead. They might be concentrating on the speedo, looking for roadside cameras, or their attention level might have dropped due to a lower speed. We risk changing Case 1 drivers into Case 3 drivers."

That's not what he says on his site.

Yawn, indeed.

OK, let's look at your complete paragraph.

Well, by definition a road can be considered 'fast' because drivers travel faster on them, but if we are to follow your theory that drivers tend to drive to the speed limit, it's the speed limit that influences the speed that the drivers drive at. Ergo, it's speed limits that make one road faster than another.

Wrong. They _believe_ it is safe to travel faster, so they do. Also, consider that many drivers only view safety from their own perspective - for instance, approaching a bend on a country road, many young drivers are more apt to subconciously think 'can I make this bend at this speed?' rather than 'can I stop if there's someone coming the other way?' Now, why do people believe it's safe to travel at 80mph on a motorway? Because the motorway was built for people to drive faster, safely. Importantly, this does not mean that everyone on the motorway has the ability to accurately judge a safe speed for themselves to drive at.

Implies that you believe removing speed limits would result in either no-one driving recklessely or only a minority. I normally wouldn't mind giving the minority a little leeway but even one death due to a driver doing 60mph along the High Street because it's legal and they _believe_ it's safe for them to do so, would be one death too many.

What rubbish. When you started on this I didn't really think you believed what you were saying. It's now apparent that you do, which shows an astonishingly biased and/or plain stupid reading and comprehension level.

So there's no mention of children here. He's accepted that a very slanted view _could_ misinterpret it to read that he's opposed to slowing down in general, but it's quite clear to anyone of normal intelligence that it's not what he's saying at all.

Enough already. Don't you think you've made yourself look stupid enough without digging even further?

In message , Ace writes

[snip]

Read the page numpty! Read the heading of the page we are taking about. Just in case you have a very low comprehension level or are plain stupid, I'll help you out. It says :-

"Kill your speed or kill a child.

This page seeks to examine the claim that drivers exceeding the speed limit are automatically risking the lives of children".

So there's no mention of children then?

I'll leave that to you. You have just shown that I couldn't possibly compete.

If you ever feel the need to accuse someone of being stupid or lacking in comprehension, do try and read the whole material to avoid looking like a complete tit.

It's quite obvious that drivers do not travel at the speed limit. According to recent figures 59% exceed the 30mph limit in town at sample sites for example.

In heavy traffic they might not be travelling at all. (0mph!)

On A rural roads the average speed is far below the speed limit.

And in a narrow and busy village high street the average speed might be 15mph or so.

[snip]

If we did remove all speed limits (and one day in the not so near future it might be a good idea) The vast majority would continue to drive at safe and appropriate speeds.

You bet there is... Starting with an emphasis on real safety factors.

It was much more fun then though, wasn't it? And the satisfaction when you managed to get everything working together.

I went on to linux, as I really couldn't get on with the inflexibility of Windoze in comparison. The needs of three school age kids to use the same software that they use at school has unfortunately forced me down that path for now though.

Just to clarify, it wasnt the camera sign that was the problem - when they combined the camera sign with the statutory speed limit sign they continued the border around around the whole thing making the pseed limit sign not comply. As for disciplining the officers I fail to see one what grounds - for knowing the law!??

JP

In my experience its far less than that. There are *so* many causes of fatal accidents that its extremely hard to pinpoint one main factor for each - except for poor driving that is!

JP

JP mumbled:

Just the opposite, surely? If there aren't sufficient resources to have a copper on every road then dumb cameras are probably the only way to go if you assume that some drivers are not to be trusted to drive at an appropriate speed for the conditions.

But you are never going to have enough cameras to put everywhere either - so then need to be sited intelligently as well - where they will have the biggest impact to reduce road casualties rather than where they will catch the most people speeding

JP

Darren Robinson fascinated us all by saying...

Mines on my bedside table, I've had it since I was 2 years old

I thought it was the policy of local councillors to promote the playing of children in roads. Why else do we have signs of children and 20mph speed limits? I feel it hardly contributes to children's perception of danger of moving cars.

Personally i cant see where he is advocating driving faster near areas of danger, he is simply saying over enforcement is causing attention to be placed in the wrong areas.

is it better to drive at 35mph in an area where there are lots of hazards such as children playing and be 100% aware of everything going on around you or is it better to drive at 30mph, keep exactly to that speed while checking your speedo all the time and be less aware of potential hazards? i know which one i would rather do but i also know which would be punished.

my 2p