Safe Speed Forums

Speed is dangerous.

It must be, the human body is not design to exceed about thirty miles an hour for a brief period. If you were built to go faster then you would have a streamlined head and wings.

When the first railway opened (between Liverpool and Manchester I think) there was an uproar in the papers because they said people would die if they travelled at the proposed speed of twelve mph. The reason given was that as they were in open carriages, anybody travelling at that speed would have so much air forced into their lungs they wouldn’t be able to breathe properly.

We now all drive about in enclosed comfort in an environment insulated from the outside world which encourages us to drive faster than we would otherwise. We think we are safe. Thirty mph on a motorbike was b****y fast and dangerous without protective clothing and helmet. Thirty mph in an open car without windscreen seemed very fast particularly when you ran into a wasp going the other way.

So you will never get over the point that speed isn’t dangerous because the general populace feel that speed is dangerous. It is built into their thousands of years of evolution.

Fairground rides are only scary if they go fast but they don’t have to go that fast because people are exposed to the elements. People travel quite happily at 500mph as long as they are in a metal tube thousands of feet above anything that would make them think they are travelling fast.

A pedestrian watching a car go past at 30mph thinks it is travelling very fast and yet they watch an aeroplane take off at 150 mph and wonder at how slow it is travelling. It is all relevant to the distance and the perceived risk. Isn’t it always pedestrians who complain about traffic whizzing through towns and calling for more speed limits and bumps and cameras?

We are always going to be on a loser trying to explain that speed doesn’t kill because it is built into the average human that speed is dangerous.

I don’t have a solution but understanding the problem might help.

Have I just posted a load of old whatsit and blatantly obvious or does anybody else think that is the problem.

_________________
Shooting is good for you and too good for some people.

Aren't cameras equally dangerous ( sorry , in the light of the lighthearted poke at the speed brigade , thought i'd join in with one on the effects of cams)

Now if we believe that speed is dangerous , we must look at why.
It's not speed that hurts , it's the deceleration that does the damage.
Like hitting a brick wall at 30mph, or getting a sharp jolt as you react to the brake lights of the driver in front automatically reacting to either a camera or markings. Why - he does not know , it's a sub program in the back of his brain that automatically says " when you pass a camera, you're going too fast , slow down" The "experts" say so , they have the figures, they must be right
Perhaps it's reaction to overexposure to radar / lasar radiation.
We know what damage radiation in terms of short wavelengths can do to the reproductive organs ( the health bods even ban pregnant women from x rays).
Could this be a new disease produced by the excesses of cameras affecting the tissue of the brain - will we now see a pilot survey to see how dangerous these rays are to pregnant women ?
Next we will have to ensure that all pregnant women do not drivepast ( or horror of horrors , walk by ) a camera.

Drivers know different or they wouldn't use speed.

We have to appeal to and promote the realistic, accurate and practical driver's mindset.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Drivers don't think they are speeding because they are insulated and protected from the dangers.

The people we have to convert are the observers of our speed who think we are going too fast. All the stastics in the world will not convince the in-built fear of danger.

I am trying to open the discussion to understand the attitude of 'reduce speed or die'.

_________________
Shooting is good for you and too good for some people.

I've got limited time (last post and this one) right now.

I was trying to point out that there are two competing public mindsets. One of our strategies must be to favour the more helpful and practical drivers' mindset.

Clearly the door is open to win because more people drive than don't.

We also need to be very careful about our 'speed' terms.

Inappropriate speed - always dangerous, always undesirable.
Speeding = exceeding a speed limit - safety neutral - depends on circumstances.
Speed - a good thing. We want faster computers, faster deliveries and faster roads. Faster roads are safer. Speed in miles per hour doesn't tell us anything about safety.

Strangely enough - I have to DASH!

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Brookwood , sorry - misunderstood your motive - thought it was spoof on "speed kills".
You said "The people we have to convert are the observers of our speed who think we are going too fast. All the stastics in the world will not convince the in-built fear of danger. "

But it is statistics, and false ones , purveyed by people who have a vested interest in maintaining those statistical inaccuracies that at present prevail.
The pratnerships have given communities , where true policing has failed , false hopes in a reduction of accidents.
And our local politicians are frightened to buck the trend lest the might of central government ( in either a solid rebuke ,or more likely a whispered one) descend on them.
The problem is not only to convert them , but to persuade the politicians that the persecution of innocent motorists could be hazardous to their wealth( i.e . severe loss of votes)

Botach I understand you. The problem is our life revolves around stastics false or otherwise. Wrong stastics are very difficult to disprove particularly when they get in the media and it is too late by then anyway. The public will believe what they want to believe.

I hate false information and wrongful interpretation of the facts like "Speed kills" but it is going on around us all the time. To win our argument I think you have to get the public on your side. Win their 'mindset' and you win the battle.

We have to replace those 'false hopes' with 'real ones' but we are up against the media who don't want any facts to get in the way of a good story. And the politicians follow the media otherwise they wouldn't be politicians and more concerned with their image.

Paul's comment about more drivers than walkers is valid but when I am a walker then I tend to hate the driver bearing down on me at what I consider to be too fast a speed. He is insulated from the consequences; I'm not. I have absolutely no idea how fast he is going it just seems too fast for me.

_________________
Shooting is good for you and too good for some people.

As a cyclist (and motorist) I would prefer a road to have a 40mph limit rather than a 30mph limit, as it means that the vehicle spends less time overtaking and is less likely to break the law (some people momentarily speed up when overtaking a bike in a 30mph area, but not in a 40mph area).

What we need is the same strict survellance of the setting of speed limits as the "we need a lower limit brigade" ., and untill this is done by a professional government body it will be a lottery.

pedestrians -mainly i suspect the ones who don't drive- don't understand speed and distance in the same way as a motorist. many times I brake, early and obviously, when seeing someone at a zebra crossing so they can cross without me having to come to a complete halt but often they stand there and galp at me.

I guess in fairness they're too used to drivers who either race up then brake to a halt or don't stop at all, but as a driver it's annoying, especially when the other noticable type of pedestrian is the one who confuses "right of way" with "invisible force field that repels motor vehicles"

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction