Would you swap speed bumps for SPECs?

[alex24]

I'd prefer a solution that actually deals with the causes of accidents personally.

This would be the holy grail of road safety.

What are the causes?

What can be done to tackle them?

Nobody seems to have the answer, though I'd like to hear what people think would help. The driving test is a good point. I found that it was a fair test of driving ability about town, but not a test of responsibility, common sense or car control. Those things are all very important in driving and reducing road deaths and injuries.

There was a thread on some chap who was on TV because he was driving dangerously in a 106 or some crapbucket like that. Why is the question. Why did he think it was ok? Did he not think? Was he ever enlightened about the potential risk to himself and others? With some people, even telling them these things doesn't help, they won't sink in. He may have been one of them. So what to do? Responsibility, of course, must be earned. If you have been caught more than once driving dangerously/drunk etc, you should be given a harsh penalty. The first time should also be more harsh in my opinion. The punishment should reflect the crime. It may seem small, but ask any police traffic officer who's had to attend one of many fatal RTAs from these problems, and they'll tell you it's no trivial matter.

How can one change the test to make it a better test of character and responsibility? These things are just as important, if not more, than being able to control a car. First, a driver must prove they take the responsibility seriously. This makes it difficult to test, as tests are not conducted in the real world as such, and your mates aren't your passenger etc.

I would like to hear what you guys think can improve the test system as well as measures like SPECS on the roads themselves. I think that perhaps there should be no 'test' as such, but a driver must complete a set number of hours of lessons with one instructor, who can then, after that point, certify them safe to drive. I'm aware some instructors may be corrupt in enforcing this, but a regulated system where they are informed of what is expected of a driver should be more effective I think. The 'test' would then be much more subjective than absolute, but such is the nature of life, no two situations are alike.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

I've never seen a SPECS camera anywhere near a speedbump, but I'd welcome regular GATSO type cameras to replace every single speed bump.

 

[Dolph]

This would be the holy grail of road safety.

What are the causes?

What can be done to tackle them?

Nobody seems to have the answer, though I'd like to hear what people think would help. The driving test is a good point. I found that it was a fair test of driving ability about town, but not a test of responsibility, common sense or car control. Those things are all very important in driving and reducing road deaths and injuries.

There was a thread on some chap who was on TV because he was driving dangerously in a 106 or some crapbucket like that. Why is the question. Why did he think it was ok? Did he not think? Was he ever enlightened about the potential risk to himself and others? With some people, even telling them these things doesn't help, they won't sink in. He may have been one of them. So what to do? Responsibility, of course, must be earned. If you have been caught more than once driving dangerously/drunk etc, you should be given a harsh penalty. The first time should also be more harsh in my opinion. The punishment should reflect the crime. It may seem small, but ask any police traffic officer who's had to attend one of many fatal RTAs from these problems, and they'll tell you it's no trivial matter.

How can one change the test to make it a better test of character and responsibility? These things are just as important, if not more, than being able to control a car. First, a driver must prove they take the responsibility seriously. This makes it difficult to test, as tests are not conducted in the real world as such, and your mates aren't your passenger etc.

I would like to hear what you guys think can improve the test system as well as measures like SPECS on the roads themselves. I think that perhaps there should be no 'test' as such, but a driver must complete a set number of hours of lessons with one instructor, who can then, after that point, certify them safe to drive. I'm aware some instructors may be corrupt in enforcing this, but a regulated system where they are informed of what is expected of a driver should be more effective I think. The 'test' would then be much more subjective than absolute, but such is the nature of life, no two situations are alike.

The government has done a lot of work on this, and got some pretty good data which should have led to some reasonable suggestions, they've just ignored the results (or willfully and deliberately misrepresented them through inappropriate grouping) when they haven't liked them or they would be a hard sell to the electorate...

http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/221549/227755/rrcgb2008.pdf

Make sure to look at Table 4a

 

[alex24]

Thanks for the link Dolph, I've skimmed over most of it, particularly tables, and there's a whole load of data there with some fairly obvious, and less obvious trends. Interesting read, if a bit morbid.

Do you have any thoughts on how to achieve better road safety?

 

[Dolph]

Thanks for the link Dolph, I've skimmed over most of it, particularly tables, and there's a whole load of data there with some fairly obvious, and less obvious trends. Interesting read, if a bit morbid.

Do you have any thoughts on how to achieve better road safety?

I have a few, some of which depend on how much you want to restrict people vs how many lives could be saved.

There are certainly evidence based arguments for banning motorbikes (massively over-represented in the KSI stats), for stronger testing (including retesting) and for better driver education. The problem is that these things are not popular, and hence don't get much actual support. Most accidents are the result of poor observation, and yet very little is made of the importance of observation at all times. Driving is considered, by a great many people, to be something you do while doing other things, and it really isn't.

I'd like to see the focus moved from speed to careless/dangerous driving, along with retesting as a realistic alternative. I'd also like to see more work into automated driving for those who don't want to drive, as opposed to using it as some sort of authoritarian control crap which is how it's often been presented. There are many days when I'd love to let the car take the strain and leave me to it, but no-one seems to be pushing that idea.

 

[alex24]

Good thoughts. I agree there is an emphasis on speed, but at the moment this is important because, as the stats show, people are not being observant enough. Slower speed gives you more time to react and reduces the severity of any incidents where people aren't paying attention, not just those incidents represented under excess speed. It's a factor relevant to most collisions.

Retesting seems to be a popular idea with some, but the problem here really is the cost. It would have to be subsidised somewhat. How frequent?

I love the idea of removing the human equation. I think the tech is still not there for this yet. Not sure why though, perhaps there is a lack of public demand, plus the cost of implementing any likely system is high, and drivers are already punished enough by the government. No party will support this, certainly not right now anyway.

Do you agree that punishments for careless driving should be more harsh?

 

[iaind]

SPECS simply wouldnt work in residential areas

PMKeates said what happens if you slow down because someone reverses out of your drive, but the problem is more fundamental than that - what if you ARE the person reversing out the drive because you live there?

Average speed cameras only work where people arent going to be stopping, in places where people live this will never work.

Saying that, I'd still swap speedbumps for speed enforcement of some sort - I'm more than capable of controlling my speed

 

[Dolph]

Good thoughts. I agree there is an emphasis on speed, but at the moment this is important because, as the stats show, people are not being observant enough. Slower speed gives you more time to react and reduces the severity of any incidents where people aren't paying attention, not just those incidents represented under excess speed. It's a factor relevant to most collisions.

But speed cameras don't treat that, not in the slightest, nor do they actually prevent the collisions. I've said it before, but the obsession with targetting speed is like only giving someone a blunt knife so when they cut themselves because they aren't using it properly, it won't be quite so bad. A much better approach is to teach them to use it properly in the first place.

Retesting seems to be a popular idea with some, but the problem here really is the cost. It would have to be subsidised somewhat. How frequent?

Why would it has to be subsidised? One thing we need to move away from is the idea that driving is a right. As for frequency, I've not seen enough infomation as to the benefit curve, so I wouldn't like to say.

I love the idea of removing the human equation. I think the tech is still not there for this yet. Not sure why though, perhaps there is a lack of public demand, plus the cost of implementing any likely system is high, and drivers are already punished enough by the government. No party will support this, certainly not right now anyway.

The tech is already there (see the Darpa grand challenge, for example), it's just only ever brought up in a 'punish the driver' sort of way. No car company would even think about deploying it at the moment though, the risk of liability is far too great, because we're obsessed with risk elimination, not risk management, and even if it was safer than a human driver, we'd get people suing because the car crashed into someone...

If someone came up with the idea of the car now and we'd never had it before, it would never get past the health and safety fascists.

Do you agree that punishments for careless driving should be more harsh?

I don't see the need for the punishments to be more harsh, just for a better police presence and a greater willingness to stop careless drivers and do something about them. The number of people I see on a morning driving down the dual carriageway putting their makeup on while tailgating at 65mph for example is shocking. But the police never touch these people because they have been replaced with a camera van punishing the chap doing 80mph perfectly safely in the fast lane.

The big problem is that it's the majority that drive badly, and the politicians don't want to upset them by penalising them, so instead they target irrelevant actions by minorities to create the illusion of action.

 

[rypt]

I love speed bumps I slow down to 5mph or less crawl over them annoying anyone behind me. If they are very close together then I just crawl though the whole area at 10mph so that I don't have to do the speedup/slowdown thing over and over again.

 

[r3loaded]

This would be the holy grail of road safety.

What are the causes?

What can be done to tackle them?

Afaik, I think the primary cause of the majority of accidents is someone not checking around them properly before manoeuvring (where a manoeuvre is a change in speed/direction).

I think that perhaps there should be no 'test' as such, but a driver must complete a set number of hours of lessons with one instructor, who can then, after that point, certify them safe to drive. I'm aware some instructors may be corrupt in enforcing this, but a regulated system where they are informed of what is expected of a driver should be more effective I think. The 'test' would then be much more subjective than absolute, but such is the nature of life, no two situations are alike.

I think they already do something like that in Sweden. In addition (along with Finland), they also do a lesson on a skidpan to learn about controlling the car when it skids.

 

[helpimcrap]

i think i'm in the minority when i say speed bumps. mainly coz the average guy has to slow down for them or risk wrecking his car more. also because someone WILL find a way around specs and unless they dig them up there's no way around speed humps. they'll end up knackering the car and it being off the road so it works on that side of the coin too.