More on Driving

I see that my blog entry on the M4 speed cameras elicited a flurry of comments. It is, after all, an emotive subject. Given some of the comments and the issues they raise, I thought further discussion is in order.

As an advanced rider and driver (as well as having been a qualified driving instructor) I follow a fairly simple basic premise when on the road. I maintain maximum distance between my vehicle and hazards. Those hazards range from other road users to static road furniture. When I’m out on the bike on an empty road you will see me hugging the white line in the centre of the road. From here I am equidistant from the roadsides (and their associated hazards) and I have maximum visibility of the road ahead. I adjust my position on the road when approaching bends, or oncoming traffic. On the motorway I will move into the middle lane to avoid lorry ruts in the nearside lane. They might not be particularly noticeable in a car, but they affect directional stability on a bike; believe me.

The other thing I can do to maximise distance between myself and hazards is adjust my speed. Dropping back to increase the space between myself and the vehicle in front, for example. However, I can also increase speed to get clear of a bunch of traffic or to overtake an erratic driver.

Which brings me inevitably back to speed and its effective use. I tend to disagree with he current hysteria about speed because it places the wrong emphasis on the speed component of driving. The argument goes that an impact at higher speed will make survival less likely. While this is fine, the whole point of assessing hazards is to avoid the collision in the first place and that is where the effort should be concentrated. Maintaining roadspace does that. Let’s be clear here; the posted speed limit laid down by law and the safe speed for a given stretch of road at a given time are not necessarily the same thing. On many open roads, a safe speed is well in excess of the posted limit.

What do I mean by safe speed anyway? It is the speed at which the driver can stop or take avoiding action within the road space that is seen to be clear. Therefore, on a 70mph motorway in dense fog, the safe speed may be 20mph. Obvious, really. Which begs the question why so many drivers tailgate at 70mph in such conditions…

There is an exception to this and it is the one where I agree with the safe speed fascists: Urban areas. I’ve come across the question on a number of occasions; why do we still have a mandatory 30mph limit when vehicles’ performance has improved so much? The answer is that people haven’t. Given the high density of hazards in the urban environment; road signs, traffic lights, poster hoardings, shops, schools, pedestrians, other vehicles etc., the levels of concentration necessary and the need to retain sufficient roadspace mean that the mandatory 30mph is about right. Indeed, in some cases it could be lower. The other thing to bear in mind is that here, the issue about impact makes sense. Survival in a collision becomes more likely at these lower speeds – particularly for pedestrians involved. Also, at these lower speeds, the driver has more time to react and avoid the collision in the first instance.

Because I agree with the philosophy of maintaining lower speeds in the urban environment, I practice what I preach and rigorously stick to the posted speed limits. I’m not in any hurry anyway. However, where I fall out with the road planners (now there’s an oxymoron) is the insistence of yet more road furniture in the name of safety. Far better to adopt more effective systems such as shared space where drivers and pedestrians are encouraged to look out for each other and take some responsibility for their own actions. It is a system that has so far proved to have worked. The other system that works well is the Spanish one that has speed operated traffic lights. Go too fast and the lights change against you. The result is that drivers regulate their speed on approach and keep moving.

The cynic in me feels that these devices will never be adopted in this country in significant quantity because, unlike speed cameras, they generate no income. I wait to be proved wrong.