Nuxx:08313c77-1528-4cfa-bbf9-99b4fdf12e7d@u10g2000vbd.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!backlog1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!u10g2000vbd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <08313c77-1528-4cfa-bbf9-99b4fdf12e7d@u10g2000vbd.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: IAM Cycle Safety presentations Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:03:00 -0700 (PDT) References:  <8m6i35tsroolbv1ueoajob644rl2c26iij@4ax.com>   <2VD*8kPJs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> Lines: 43 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.150.242 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1245362580 10492 127.0.0.1 (18 Jun 2009 22:03:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:03:00 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: u10g2000vbd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.150.242; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.11) Gecko/2009060215 Firefox/3.0.11 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3760 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:710621

On Jun 18, 3:10=A0pm, David Damerell  wrote: > Quoting =A0Simon Brooke =A0: > > >Also, even given the probability of crash being invariant with speed, > >the amount of physical damage done increases with the second power of > >the closing speed, > > Apparently I'm not allowed to count exacerbating the consequences as > making speed more dangerous.

Which "speed"? Impact speed or free-travelling speed? I know it suits camera supporters to pretend that the two are the same, but we all know really that they're not, and if we genuinely want to find out whether draconian speed enforcement is a good thing, we need to consider the facts as they actually are, not as certain people would like them to be.

Assuming you mean impact speed, I think you'll find that things such as observation, anticipation and slowing down in areas of danger have an extremely high percentage of hazards are entirely predictable. Additionally, forcing drivers to travel at an unnecessarily low free- travelling speed adversely affects observation and anticipation through effects such as boredom and frustration, and *all sorts* of other more subtle effects, thereby more than cancelling out any marginal benefits gained from going at a lower free-travelling speed.
 * much* more effect on impact speed than free-travelling speed does, as

Net result: speed limits which are too low have *no* safety benefit, and quite possibly a safety *disbenefit*, as any half-decent driver can instinctively tell when they're made to pootle along at an unnaturally low speed for the conditions for miles on end. We're dealing with human beings here, not robots, and therefore psychology is vitally important. It's no good saying "But drivers *shouldn't* become distracted when they're made to travel slower than they need to"; the fact is that they *do* become distracted, by dint of being human, and that's what we have to deal with.

At the end of the day, you're always going to have a preference for speed cameras and other measures which restrict/punish motorists due to your self-confessed dislike of drivers. You're going to be very unwilling to entertain the possibility that things such as the above are true. That doesn't mean that they *aren't* true though.