Using mobile, kills cyclist - sentenced to 5 years.

[singlecoil]

turbobloke said:

singlecoil said:

walm said:

singlecoil said:

If you are going to rely on the findings of people with rather odd sounding names, you need to post the links.

Well in fairness, it's harder when the names are more common.
"Smith and Smith" would stretch even Deep Thought's Googling abilities.

True. Never the less, I expect that the reports he refers to are more than a single sentence each, and that there is rather more to them than TB's conclusions. Interested parties might like to read them for themselves.

Good point, after all the conclusions aren't mine - the researchers looked at the data and drew their own.

If people entering the speed debate want to find sources, and given that some of us can, it can't be too difficult. Some of us might even have been reading the research reports for decades but that wouldn't fit well with the one liner put-downs that people without any similar sources like to resort to.

Better to use data and evidence at hand to form an opinion, rather than run around trying to justify a position without having the basis for it first off.

Still no links then. Wonder why?


As for your sources, I think when we do see the links they will be found wanting in important respects. In the meantime, it's evident to anyone who drives that the vast majority of motorists adjust their speed to suit the limits. It may well be that they will drive slightly over the limit, but it will in most cases be by an amount that they have found they can get away with.

[plasticpig]

Breadvan72 said:

"Roll on Friday" reports that "Lord Harley" does not have an SRA regulated practice, and should only act as a consultant instructed by another law firm. If this is accurate, query on what basis he conducted the trial in the case under discussion.

He is on the rolls of the law society as Alan Blacker and it says he is SRA regulated.

[turbobloke]

singlecoil said:

Still no links then. Wonder why?


As for your sources, I think when we do see the links they will be found wanting in important respects. In the meantime, it's evident to anyone who drives that the vast majority of motorists adjust their speed to suit the limits. It may well be that they will drive slightly over the limit, but it will in most cases be by an amount that they have found they can get away with.

A solution for you, as you're unaware of certain elements of the research literature on speed and safety, is to offer your own studies that others with an ounce of awareness could check, rather than offering vague smears against researchers publishing results you don't like.

Something may be evident to you, but without data your attempt to generalise fails and the likelihood that you're wrong is still there, not least because the evidence available doesn't support your position too well.

Compliance with speed limits is poor as any UK motorway journey will show. A similar position applies in urban areas, Harkey et al found that 70% of vehicles exceeded the speed limit on a representative sample of low and moderate speed roads across four States. Similar results have been reported by the European Transport Safety Council, and in Canada (Knowles et al). About half of UK drivers exceeded the 30 mph speed limit in 2012 according to UK gov't stats.

If you're not aware of the sources, you can see the results above, and if you want more you can always do the research that some others have already done. Or just continue as above, believing you can make up facts to suit your position without taking much if any trouble to check.

[tenpenceshort]

Yawn. Yet another thread where TB wants to bang on about speed limits being a bad thing.

Have you run out of climate change graphs?

[turbobloke]

tenpenceshort said:

Yawn. Yet another thread where TB wants to bang on about speed limits being a bad thing.

Have you run out of climate change graphs?

You must have run out of anything vaguely relevant to add to the topic, assuming it ever existed.

Check back, somebody else moved the discussion on to speed related matters.

Next.

[turbobloke]

FTR it was singlecoil in the post timed at 1459 hrs.

Have a pop at singlecoil, they won't believe their luck to have the attention of such a player.

[tenpenceshort]

Oh come on TB, hijacking a thread about someone on a phone killing another road user and turning it into a discussion about speed limits, along with the usual research and peer review etc. Etc.etc. is somehow on topic? Reallly? Reality check time.

[turbobloke]

tenpenceshort said:

Oh come on TB, hijacking a thread about someone on a phone killing another road user and turning it into a discussion about speed limits, along with the usual research and peer review etc. Etc.etc. is somehow on topic? Reallly? Reality check time.

FFS

See the post by singlecoil at 1459 hrs.

Somebody else turned the discussion.

Anyone who can't cope with data and evidence must think that making stuff up or turning the discussion personal represent better strategies.

Try reading posts before making baseless accusations, and try the research literature or you might end up even more misinformed.

[singlecoil]

turbobloke said:

Compliance with speed limits is poor as any UK motorway journey will show. A similar position applies in urban areas, Harkey et al found that 70% of vehicles exceeded the speed limit on a representative sample of low and moderate speed roads across four States. Similar results have been reported by the European Transport Safety Council, and in Canada (Knowles et al). About half of UK drivers exceeded the 30 mph speed limit in 2012 according to UK gov't stats.

The mistake you are making, and, to be fair, it's a common one, is to assume that because people exceed the speed limit they are taking no notice of it at all. That's not true. They are taking notice of it, but experience has shown them that they can exceed it be a certain amount and get away with it. If the limit was raised by for instance 10mph, then they would exceed that by the same margin.

[turbobloke]

singlecoil said:

turbobloke said:

Compliance with speed limits is poor as any UK motorway journey will show. A similar position applies in urban areas, Harkey et al found that 70% of vehicles exceeded the speed limit on a representative sample of low and moderate speed roads across four States. Similar results have been reported by the European Transport Safety Council, and in Canada (Knowles et al). About half of UK drivers exceeded the 30 mph speed limit in 2012 according to UK gov't stats.

The mistake you are making, and, to be fair, it's a common one, is to assume that because people exceed the speed limit they are taking no notice of it at all. That's not true. They are taking notice of it, but experience has shown them that they can exceed it be a certain amount and get away with it. If the limit was raised by for instance 10mph, then they would exceed that by the same margin.

Speeding is an absolute offence.

As shown by research which you're unaware of, the majority of drivers set a speed suiting the road conditions.

Nobody except you has brought absolutes into it.

Anyway as tenpenceshort has spoken we ought to get back to mobiles, or else...something.

[turbobloke]

To help the thread get back on topic, folks who aren't aware of the research from Carnegie Mellon University and the LSE might like to have a go at digging something out, it found that merely talking on a phone while driving does not increase crash risk. Texting and looking at pictures or websites wasn't covered by the study.

It's either research evidence or heresy depending on whether you favour data or faith in a belief, take your pick. It's their research so questions to CMU/LSE.

[Dibble]

agtlaw said:

Breadvan72 said:

What a knobend.

I knew you'd like that story.

The wearing of coloured bands on your gown (itself almost a criminal act) is made even worse by virtue of the fact that it was a homicide trial - the convention during which is to wear a white shirt (rather than a snazzy coloured stripes shirt under your collar and bands).

Well I never knew that. But come to think of it, murder trials I've attended counsel have all worn white shirts. I love interesting little snippets like that.

[Johnnytheboy]

walm said:

Johnnytheboy said:

Because punishment seems to be about the consequences of your actions, not your actions. I find this a bit odd.

I know where you are coming from but this is absolutely standard for most justice systems.

It is part retribution based and part deterrent.

You can't lock up everyone who uses their phone but if people realise that unintentionally killing someone while using your phone means prison then they might think twice.

In short, consequences matter.
Hence "death by dangerous driving" has far more severe punishment than simply "dangerous driving".

Charging down the high street with a machete is less severely punished than charging down the high street with a machete and decapitating a toddler; manslaughter makes sense as a relevant category of crime.

I understand your point but it's a slightly flawed analogy, unless the machete wielder inadvertently decapitates a toddler, in which case I don't know why they should be punished more.

As one of my friends once put it: "why does attempted murder attract a lesser sentence than murder? It's rewarding failure."

In the case of road law, I don't see why incompetence + bad luck should be punished more than incompetence.

[burwoodman]

turbobloke said:

To help the thread get back on topic, folks who aren't aware of the research from Carnegie Mellon University and the LSE might like to have a go at digging something out, it found that merely talking on a phone while driving does not increase crash risk. Texting and looking at pictures or websites wasn't covered by the study.

It's either research evidence or heresy depending on whether you favour data or faith in a belief, take your pick. It's their research so questions to CMU/LSE.

i doubt talking has any measurable impact but texting-err we all know that's not on when driving

[Red Devil]

singlecoil said:

turbobloke said:

Compliance with speed limits is poor as any UK motorway journey will show. A similar position applies in urban areas, Harkey et al found that 70% of vehicles exceeded the speed limit on a representative sample of low and moderate speed roads across four States. Similar results have been reported by the European Transport Safety Council, and in Canada (Knowles et al). About half of UK drivers exceeded the 30 mph speed limit in 2012 according to UK gov't stats.

The mistake you are making, and, to be fair, it's a common one, is to assume that because people exceed the speed limit they are taking no notice of it at all. That's not true. They are taking notice of it, but experience has shown them that they can exceed it be a certain amount and get away with it. If the limit was raised by for instance 10mph, then they would exceed that by the same margin.

Got to love that last sentence. One of the classic non-sequiturs: appeal to probability.
http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logical-falla...
http://www.toolkitforthinking.com/critical-thinkin...

You'll have to do better than that if you want your argument(s) to be convincing.

[turbobloke]

burwoodman said:

turbobloke said:

To help the thread get back on topic, folks who aren't aware of the research from Carnegie Mellon University and the LSE might like to have a go at digging something out, it found that merely talking on a phone while driving does not increase crash risk. Texting and looking at pictures or websites wasn't covered by the study.

It's either research evidence or heresy depending on whether you favour data or faith in a belief, take your pick. It's their research so questions to CMU/LSE.

i doubt talking has any measurable impact but texting-err we all know that's not on when driving

Personally I'll hold a conversation hands-free but nothing more.

IIRC a laudable feature of the CMU/LSE research was that it didn't focus on the obvious, i.e. does speaking with somebody involve diverting cognitive resources, it looked at whether there was an increase in crash risk as a result. The study found that an increase in mobile use at the wheel did not correspond to an increase in crashes.

[Mave]

Johnnytheboy said:

I understand your point but it's a slightly flawed analogy, unless the machete wielder inadvertently decapitates a toddler, in which case I don't know why they should be punished more.

Because in wandering around with a machete they were risking people's lives, so it is only fair they also risk a heavier punishment if that risk is realised

[anonymous-user]

I did an inquest a while back in respect of a drunk bloke who lay in the road and was run over by a cab, but the cab driver was regarded as blameless in that instance.

[singlecoil]

Red Devil said:

You'll have to do better than that if you want your argument(s) to be convincing.

Speed limits exist, I don't need to be convincing, it's the anti-speed limit lobby that needs to do that. And from what I've read on here, they are a long way from doing that.

[turbobloke]

singlecoil said:

Red Devil said:

You'll have to do better than that if you want your argument(s) to be convincing.

Speed limits exist, I don't need to be convincing, it's the anti-speed limit lobby that needs to do that. And from what I've read on here, they are a long way from doing that.

OK as this has gone over to speed once again, hopefully the reply that follows won't result in another baseless accusation over diverting the thread.

So, others are said to be "a long way from doing that" in which case irony runs deep. There is a wealth of evidence against your position in this thread.

Contrary to your assertions, the majority of people set their road speed according to the conditions, disregarding the speed limit. The figure is about 75% as posted earlier.

Are the people you refer to as anti-speed limit actually like that?

Nowhere have I said that I'm anti-speed limits. I've already commented in several threads, maybe in this one somewhere, that in my view speed limits are potentially useful for two reasons: one is providing the police with an additional tool to help them remove dangerous drivers from the roads, the other is as a part of warnings of a hazard ahead that a reasonably competent driver could not be expected to anticipate. In order for that to happen, those speed limits must not be allowed to fall into widespread disrepute, as at present.

What I'm against is absurdly low speed limits and claims for speed limit efficacy that don't hold up in terms of data and evidence.