Thread: speeding offences

We have had a "Drop 5(kph)" campaign over here in WA for a while ... it sickens me.

Alleging 5kph is a useful change in speed was someone's thought bubble, ... and then the advertising to try to promote and justify it.

As a commercial (night-time) driver for 25years, I'd rather see people looking out their windscreens than down at their speedo, regardless of their (reasonable) speed.

Rather than obsess about whether they were 1km over the limit, I'd rather they
- left more room to the next car
- observed the traffic at intersections 50m before they got there
- checked for traffic at the lights before moving, regardless of the light going green
- learnt how to read the 'body language' of other cars
- etc

There's a lot of looking and being aware that needs to be done while driving.
I think focussing on speed is a poor proxy for competent driving.

Cheers,
Paul

Originally Posted by pmcgee

I think focussing on speed is a poor proxy for competent driving.

From a road safety point of view that is a definite - but it will not transfer half a billion dollars a year from our collective pockets to the government coffers.

Cheers

Doug

RE:There's a lot of looking and being aware that needs to be done while driving.
I agree Paul, driver attention to their surroundings is very ordinary.

It's instructive to watch a drivers eyes and head to determine how aware they are of their surroundings.
Most drivers have a sort of fixed head position with a vacant glazed look which goes even glassier if they're talking even on a hands free mobile,
For instance, about the only time most drivers use mirrors is when reversing, overtaking, or changing lanes (although disturbingly I've noticed a bit less of this lately) so mostly they haven't got a clue who or what is behind them.

When I did my driver instructors cert, for the first week we were re-taught to drive by a bloke who was a police driver instructor from the UK.
We were taught using what was called "roving eyes" and verbally describing what you were looking at
This was a constant shifting of attention/focus, switching randomly between all mirrors, left and right sides of the vehicle, close, medium and far distance ahead of the vehicles, and the vehicle dashboard to report our speed and any other vehicle parameters that might have changed.
Far distant checks, Mirrors and dash checks had to be glances, with more time spent on L/R and medium/close distance checks.
While training we also had to say what all the road signs we passed were. Special attention was to be paid to road conditions, pedestrians and bicycles etc.
We were scored on number of relevant descriptions per minute and these varied according to traffic conditions.

Initially this is very difficult to do and even harder to keep up for more than about 10 minutes let alone a couple of hours, but eventually it becomes automatic although, unless regularly practiced, like most things it fades in time . I can still do it if I concentrate, but that's the point - very few drivers are really consciously concentrating on what they're doing and drive in a semi-zombi mode and this is cause of many problems. "The reason for the accident your Honour was I just didn't see . . . . . . . ", should really be " . . .. was I driving in zombie mode"

What I want to know is if it is good enough for UK cops to use this why isn't it a mandatory part of driver training for everyone?

Originally Posted by BobL

What I want to know is if it is good enough for UK cops to use this why isn't it a mandatory part of driver training for everyone?

Indeed. As should so-called "advanced driving skills". They should be normal driving skills. The only down side of that is that P-Platers will think they are even more invincible.

I'd like to have a dollar for every time a driver has impatiently gone around me to get ahead at speed when I have slowed down a tad about 100 metres from a currently red light. This means that the lights were green by the time I got there - I've not had to use the brakes, and used less petrol in simply (more or less) maintaining my speed (I may have slowed by 10-15 kph for a short while by merely releasing the accelerator).

The other driver is of course stationary at the lights as I cruise past, and so the cycle begins all over again......

Less petrol, less brakewear, less stress, AND more time to observe what's going on around me.

If I'm (say) 200-300 metres away from a light that is green then I usually assume that it will be red by the time I get there at my current speed. If I slow down a bit the chances are that it might be in the next phase of green upon my arrival. Therefore by slowing down for a bit I have overall increased the speed of my journey. No rocket science involved.

Boggles the mind how many people are in a hurry to stop at a red light.

Acceleration. That which enables you to have a longer rest at the next red light.

Nothing worse for a heavy truck driver than the car driver that coasts to a set of lights or starts to brake 100 - 200mt from the traffic lights, you have 4 or 6 gears to change I have a total of 16. As for speeding I don't because I can't. governed engine, drive line. as well I can't see the reason to exceed the posted limit for the section of road. IE From Mackay to Nebo at 10 km over the posted limit will only save you 6min. from Mackay to Rocky at 10km over the posted limit will only save you 36min. this is with a clear run, no traffic works or slow drivers. IS IT WORTH IT !!!

Originally Posted by Opelblues2

Nothing worse for a heavy truck driver than the car driver that coasts to a set of lights or starts to brake 100 - 200mt from the traffic lights, you have 4 or 6 gears to change I have a total of 16.

Well all these things have to be done with current conditions and traffic in mind of course, but surely the principle is even more relevant when so many gear changes are involved? Knock off a little speed and go back a gear or two or even three has got to be better than stopping and then going back up through 16 gears. Maybe I'm missing something but I can't see how the size of the vehicle or number of gears changes the basic premise - delay getting there and by the time you do get there you don't have to stop - just cruise on through.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Well all these things have to be done with current conditions and traffic in mind of course, but surely the principle is even more relevant when so many gear changes are involved? Knock off a little speed and go back a gear or two or even three has got to be better than stopping and then going back up through 16 gears. Maybe I'm missing something but I can't see how the size of the vehicle or number of gears changes the basic premise - delay getting there and by the time you do get there you don't have to stop - just cruise on through.

But what about the people who are behind you who may not need to stop? How about the scenario where there is a right turn lane and the right turn arrow is green but the cars behind you cannot reach the right turn lane in time to go around because you are cruising along slowly in front of them because you don't want to come to a complete stop? I bet they would be cursing you. Same thing with a "turn left anytime with care" lane.

That type of driving causes far more inconvenience to other road users than what you perceive it saves you.

Cheers

Doug

I repeat:

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Well all these things have to be done with current conditions and traffic in mind of course,

And...

it is no different to what Bob was saying about the speed limit. Nobody is compelled to drive at the limit, so me slowing down a tad is no different to another person travelling at that lower speed consistently. In other words, if it's that important for a car behind to get to the lights quicker then they can go around. If it's a single lane road - well nobody is a mind reader and knows what the intentions of the car behind are.

Having said that, if they have a right blinker on, and I can see that it will inconvenience them that I'll do what I can to minimise that, but I won't go hugely out of my way. I'll accommodate what is feasible at the time.

Originally Posted by doug3030

That type of driving causes far more inconvenience to other road users than what you perceive it saves you.

Actually Doug, the kind of driving that you are perceiving there describes a mate of mine to a tee. He-could-not-care-less about other drivers, and is obsessed about fuel economy. He'll ease off the accelerator before the crest of a hill so that he just craaaawwwls over the crest (out of gear of course) and then coasts down the hill. If it's a big hill he will then zip past all the people he has just held up (because they have gone around him in frustration) and then hold them up on the next hill.

A giant PITA on the road. His methods are fallacious in many ways - he just doesn't understand thee concept of dropping back a gear at the base of an uphill (where the revs are up) and easing off the accelerator. Far more fuel efficient than squeezing the accelerator down to get the maximum out of top gear until the engine is labouring and then changing down halfway up the hill. He's just got a mindset that staying in the highest gear (regardless of accel pedal depression) must be more fuel efficient. Same thing with driving out of gear - must be more efficient, regardless of how dangerous that can be, and how totally unprepared he is to take evasive action (we have to drive allowing for the other dickhead - defensive driving). Until reasonably established otherwise, I assume the other drivers around me could be incompetent.

These days, with him, I usually insist that I drive. It's too embarrassing and frustrating being his passenger. And I'm saving him fuel over his dopey methods.....

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Actually Doug, the kind of driving that you are perceiving there describes a mate of mine to a tee. He-could-not-care-less about other drivers....

Sounds like my ex-brother-in-law. I had my niece, his daughter (primary school age) in my car once and the conversation went something like this:


Niece: You drive up to the red lights and stop. Dad slows down and tries to avoid stopping. Dad says that makes him a better driver than you.

Me: Really? Well I think I am a better driver than your dad.

Niece: Why?

Me: For exactly the same reason.

Niece: What?

Me: Well, next time your dad slows down like that for a red light, have a look at the drivers who go past and turn off to the left or right. See if they are mouthing insults at your dad. He is slowing them down, they might not have to slow down if he drove sensibly.

(a few weeks later)

Niece: Uncle Doug, you were right. The other drivers are always giving dad dirty looks.


The Brother-in-law was absolutely obsessed with not coming to a complete halt at lights and really did annoy people, but he could not see what a problem it was for others. I was in his car once when someone else did the same thing to him when he wanted to turn on the green arrow. He cursed and swore at this driver and said they should not even be on the roads. It never occurred to him that they were doing the same thing as he does.

Cheers

Doug

Originally Posted by doug3030

The Brother-in-law was absolutely obsessed with not coming to a complete halt at lights

Yeah, so am I to an extent.....

.....but without this bit:

Originally Posted by doug3030

and really did annoy people

Here's something few people know about.

Lets say the speed limit on a freeway is 100 and the traffic density is high but not yet grid locked .

What is the optimum speed for the roads to transfer the maximum number of cars ?
It turns out that if everyone sticks between 70 and 80 this will result in the shortest average time on the road.

For medium-high traffic density it's 80-90.
The speed limit only really results in a minimum time trip for medium to light traffic density.

The reason is that slower traffic results in less surging (fast - slow - stop) and cars being able to safely keep closer together.

The lane switchers and tailgaters that insist on trying to do the speed limit in higher traffic densities only slow things down not just for everyone else but for them as well.

This is major real reason for variable traffic speeds in places like Europe.

Interestingly this was being discussed today on Radio National's Future tense.

Originally Posted by BobL

The reason is that slower traffic results in less surging (fast - slow - stop) and cars being able to safely keep closer together.

The lane switchers and tailgaters that insist on trying to do the speed limit in higher traffic densities only slow things down not just for everyone else but for them as well.

That makes absolutely perfect sense Bob - there is no point in trying to travel at very much more than the average speed of the entire journey. I've often wished (and said) that people should drive with ant mentality, particularly when it comes to merging - one from the left, one from the right, with everybody reducing their speed beforehand to the speed they will need after the merge. When was the last time anyone saw a traffic jam or pile up on an ant trail? Err, without the aid of insecticide.

But no, what we get is the fwits that drive up as far as they can in the lane that's ending, thinking that because they're 4 car lengths further up they've made REAL PROGRESS, when all they have done is forced other people to stop upon their insistence - and slowed their stupid selves down as a result..

Whenever I see traffic entering from the left (particularly on a motorway), and I'm in the left lane, I immediately switch to the right lane if possible. It's just sense - I don't have to slow down and neither do those that are entering.

Sorry if we are getting a little off track Mark (OP), but it's all pretty relevant I guess.

Going back to my red light strategy for a moment: I remember one one night coming home from afternoon shift (so about 11 pm or so) from Sydney CBD in the mid 1970s. I was getting an absurdly good run with green lights which is quite miraculous in Sydney at any time of the clock. It became a game for me, so I decided to see how far I could go without actually stopping. In the end it was about 20km. Perhaps this was when I started developing my slow down in advance technique.