Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents
Discussion
Reminder
This thread is called "Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents"
it is not called "Speeding does not increase injury"
There is a massive difference
The former is almost certainly correct most of the time
the latter would be incorrect most of the time but is not the subject of the intended discussion, I am not sure why we are now discussing this simple physics point.
This thread is called "Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents"
it is not called "Speeding does not increase injury"
There is a massive difference
The former is almost certainly correct most of the time
the latter would be incorrect most of the time but is not the subject of the intended discussion, I am not sure why we are now discussing this simple physics point.
More up to date research here:
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/speed_humps_20_mph...
Notice more breathtaking dishonesty from those ABD whack jobs, they made all sorts of bogus claims about twenty mph limits without seeming to understand that they're not the same as zones. The ABD confused the two. I think the ABD consists, like Safespeeding, of an angry man in a shed who is way out of his depth.
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/speed_humps_20_mph...
Notice more breathtaking dishonesty from those ABD whack jobs, they made all sorts of bogus claims about twenty mph limits without seeming to understand that they're not the same as zones. The ABD confused the two. I think the ABD consists, like Safespeeding, of an angry man in a shed who is way out of his depth.
OTBC said:
What size sample do you consider statistically invalid? That's a peer-reviewed piece of research, university departments don't lend their name to any old papers.
From the paper you linked to: "In 2005-6 there were 31 202 road casualties in London, 691 within 20 mph zones. Using the more conservative risk reduction estimates based on 2000-6, we estimate that 20 mph zones prevent 203 casualties each year, of whom 27 would be killed and seriously injured and 51 would be pedestrians."The 20mph figures comprise 2% of the total, and the number of fatalities is such that single events make a substantial difference.
Phatboy317 said:
singlecoil said:
You would have a better chance of my believing you if you didn't come across like a one man single interest pressure group (not that you are going to apply very much pressure with arguments of that quality).
Personally, I don't care what you believe.I only care about the truth.
So if you think I'm wrong, prove it.
singlecoil said:
I don't think you are right, and I don't think you are wrong. That's because like most others of your persuasion you fail to spell out exactly what it is that you want, and even when you hint at things you might like, you don't say how you would make them happen.
What exactly would "my persuasion" be?I don't "want" anything, I just call things as I see them.
Phatboy317 said:
singlecoil said:
I don't think you are right, and I don't think you are wrong. That's because like most others of your persuasion you fail to spell out exactly what it is that you want, and even when you hint at things you might like, you don't say how you would make them happen.
What exactly would "my persuasion" be?Phatboy317 said:
I don't "want" anything, I just call things as I see them.
See above.What a ridiculous thread!
Anyway, a query:
Or are we only going to allow cases where speed meant that grip was exceeded and the car fell off the road?
Anyway, a query:
blueg33 said:
Reminder
This thread is called "Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents"
it is not called "Speeding does not increase injury"
There is a massive difference
The former is almost certainly correct most of the time
the latter would be incorrect most of the time but is not the subject of the intended discussion, I am not sure why we are now discussing this simple physics point.
If I'm driving along in a 30mph zone at 60mph, and you pull out of a side junction into my path for a reason that will forever remain unknown, and I can't stop in time, but could have at 30mph, is that an accident caused by speed? Or are we calling that secondary? What?This thread is called "Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents"
it is not called "Speeding does not increase injury"
There is a massive difference
The former is almost certainly correct most of the time
the latter would be incorrect most of the time but is not the subject of the intended discussion, I am not sure why we are now discussing this simple physics point.
Or are we only going to allow cases where speed meant that grip was exceeded and the car fell off the road?
trashbat said:
What a ridiculous thread!
Anyway, a query:
Or are we only going to allow cases where speed meant that grip was exceeded and the car fell off the road?
The accident is caused by you. "your" inappropriate speed doesn't help.Anyway, a query:
blueg33 said:
Reminder
This thread is called "Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents"
it is not called "Speeding does not increase injury"
There is a massive difference
The former is almost certainly correct most of the time
the latter would be incorrect most of the time but is not the subject of the intended discussion, I am not sure why we are now discussing this simple physics point.
If I'm driving along in a 30mph zone at 60mph, and you pull out of a side junction into my path for a reason that will forever remain unknown, and I can't stop in time, but could have at 30mph, is that an accident caused by speed? Or are we calling that secondary? What?This thread is called "Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents"
it is not called "Speeding does not increase injury"
There is a massive difference
The former is almost certainly correct most of the time
the latter would be incorrect most of the time but is not the subject of the intended discussion, I am not sure why we are now discussing this simple physics point.
Or are we only going to allow cases where speed meant that grip was exceeded and the car fell off the road?
Speed has never caused an accident yet, people cause them. usually because they trust the vehicle they are using too much. Similarly using the example of hitting a tree at 100mph or 10mph. it's not the speed, it's the leaving the road due to inattention or not reacting in time.
I'm firmly in the camp of "I like to make progress"...but that doesn't mean I like speed. Sometimes making a bit of progress heightens your senses...unlike trogging along at 50mph everywhere that is sleep inducing sometimes.
Slower speeds cause longer tailbacks, thus heightening frustration, then lacks of concentration actually cause people to do the unthinkable, and make a mistake...usually resulting in an "accident". the only way to prevent all accidents, is to remove the common denominator...us.
delboy735 said:
The accident is caused by you. "your" inappropriate speed doesn't help.
Speed has never caused an accident yet, people cause them. usually because they trust the vehicle they are using too much. Similarly using the example of hitting a tree at 100mph or 10mph. it's not the speed, it's the leaving the road due to inattention or not reacting in time.
I'm firmly in the camp of "I like to make progress"...but that doesn't mean I like speed. Sometimes making a bit of progress heightens your senses...unlike trogging along at 50mph everywhere that is sleep inducing sometimes.
Slower speeds cause longer tailbacks, thus heightening frustration, then lacks of concentration actually cause people to do the unthinkable, and make a mistake...usually resulting in an "accident". the only way to prevent all accidents, is to remove the common denominator...us.
Sure, but I'm confused as to whether, when pressed, we're going to file it in the 'speed limits good' column or the 'speed limits irrelevant' one.Speed has never caused an accident yet, people cause them. usually because they trust the vehicle they are using too much. Similarly using the example of hitting a tree at 100mph or 10mph. it's not the speed, it's the leaving the road due to inattention or not reacting in time.
I'm firmly in the camp of "I like to make progress"...but that doesn't mean I like speed. Sometimes making a bit of progress heightens your senses...unlike trogging along at 50mph everywhere that is sleep inducing sometimes.
Slower speeds cause longer tailbacks, thus heightening frustration, then lacks of concentration actually cause people to do the unthinkable, and make a mistake...usually resulting in an "accident". the only way to prevent all accidents, is to remove the common denominator...us.
If a pilot's not paying attention and flies his plane into the side of a mountain, it's a case of pilot error for sure, and more, but I'd still be adding a copy of it to the file marked 'granite-related incidents'.
trashbat said:
delboy735 said:
The accident is caused by you. "your" inappropriate speed doesn't help.
Speed has never caused an accident yet, people cause them. usually because they trust the vehicle they are using too much. Similarly using the example of hitting a tree at 100mph or 10mph. it's not the speed, it's the leaving the road due to inattention or not reacting in time.
I'm firmly in the camp of "I like to make progress"...but that doesn't mean I like speed. Sometimes making a bit of progress heightens your senses...unlike trogging along at 50mph everywhere that is sleep inducing sometimes.
Slower speeds cause longer tailbacks, thus heightening frustration, then lacks of concentration actually cause people to do the unthinkable, and make a mistake...usually resulting in an "accident". the only way to prevent all accidents, is to remove the common denominator...us.
Sure, but I'm confused as to whether, when pressed, we're going to file it in the 'speed limits good' column or the 'speed limits irrelevant' one.Speed has never caused an accident yet, people cause them. usually because they trust the vehicle they are using too much. Similarly using the example of hitting a tree at 100mph or 10mph. it's not the speed, it's the leaving the road due to inattention or not reacting in time.
I'm firmly in the camp of "I like to make progress"...but that doesn't mean I like speed. Sometimes making a bit of progress heightens your senses...unlike trogging along at 50mph everywhere that is sleep inducing sometimes.
Slower speeds cause longer tailbacks, thus heightening frustration, then lacks of concentration actually cause people to do the unthinkable, and make a mistake...usually resulting in an "accident". the only way to prevent all accidents, is to remove the common denominator...us.
If a pilot's not paying attention and flies his plane into the side of a mountain, it's a case of pilot error for sure, and more, but I'd still be adding a copy of it to the file marked 'granite-related incidents'.
Edited by delboy735 on Monday 20th October 23:18
delboy735 said:
Pilot error...not his speed though. Funny how there is never an inquest to see if he been flying at a slower speed, the "accident" may not have happened !! But then again, there is no way of fining pilots for exceeding speed limits is there ?? So speeding is a cash cow after all
On the other hand, there's a good connection between accident severity and altitude, ie the further the plane drops the harder it hits.Edited by delboy735 on Monday 20th October 23:18
So we can make plane crashes more survivable by limiting altitude to 20 feet.
singlecoil said:
Well, as things stand, that persuasion would be someone who wants to complain about speed limits and enforcement, but won't be drawn on exactly what he wants in their place if anything.
I'm not complaining, simply pointing out shortcomings as I see them.I can't change anything, but I can try to make others aware of said shortcomings, and, hopefully, make a difference.
What is your persuasion other than to complain about what I'm doing?
delboy735 said:
trashbat said:
delboy735 said:
The accident is caused by you. "your" inappropriate speed doesn't help.
Speed has never caused an accident yet, people cause them. usually because they trust the vehicle they are using too much. Similarly using the example of hitting a tree at 100mph or 10mph. it's not the speed, it's the leaving the road due to inattention or not reacting in time.
I'm firmly in the camp of "I like to make progress"...but that doesn't mean I like speed. Sometimes making a bit of progress heightens your senses...unlike trogging along at 50mph everywhere that is sleep inducing sometimes.
Slower speeds cause longer tailbacks, thus heightening frustration, then lacks of concentration actually cause people to do the unthinkable, and make a mistake...usually resulting in an "accident". the only way to prevent all accidents, is to remove the common denominator...us.
Sure, but I'm confused as to whether, when pressed, we're going to file it in the 'speed limits good' column or the 'speed limits irrelevant' one.Speed has never caused an accident yet, people cause them. usually because they trust the vehicle they are using too much. Similarly using the example of hitting a tree at 100mph or 10mph. it's not the speed, it's the leaving the road due to inattention or not reacting in time.
I'm firmly in the camp of "I like to make progress"...but that doesn't mean I like speed. Sometimes making a bit of progress heightens your senses...unlike trogging along at 50mph everywhere that is sleep inducing sometimes.
Slower speeds cause longer tailbacks, thus heightening frustration, then lacks of concentration actually cause people to do the unthinkable, and make a mistake...usually resulting in an "accident". the only way to prevent all accidents, is to remove the common denominator...us.
If a pilot's not paying attention and flies his plane into the side of a mountain, it's a case of pilot error for sure, and more, but I'd still be adding a copy of it to the file marked 'granite-related incidents'.
If so why?
trashbat said:
What a ridiculous thread!
Anyway, a query:
Or are we only going to allow cases where speed meant that grip was exceeded and the car fell off the road?
The cause of the accident would be me pulling out in front of you. I have eyes, and I have two of them which in theory gives me depth of field and the ability to judge speed. If the road previously had a 60mph limit though, the result is the same and you wouldnt have been speeding.Anyway, a query:
blueg33 said:
Reminder
This thread is called "Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents"
it is not called "Speeding does not increase injury"
There is a massive difference
The former is almost certainly correct most of the time
the latter would be incorrect most of the time but is not the subject of the intended discussion, I am not sure why we are now discussing this simple physics point.
If I'm driving along in a 30mph zone at 60mph, and you pull out of a side junction into my path for a reason that will forever remain unknown, and I can't stop in time, but could have at 30mph, is that an accident caused by speed? Or are we calling that secondary? What?This thread is called "Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents"
it is not called "Speeding does not increase injury"
There is a massive difference
The former is almost certainly correct most of the time
the latter would be incorrect most of the time but is not the subject of the intended discussion, I am not sure why we are now discussing this simple physics point.
Or are we only going to allow cases where speed meant that grip was exceeded and the car fell off the road?
As I have said, speed must ALWAYS be a factor but it does not follow that it is a cause most of the time.
vonhosen said:
Do they have to limit their speed when moving around the airport on the ground?
If so why?
They're not limiting their speed, simply moving slowly, for much the same reason that cars generaly don't exceed speed limits whilst parking.If so why?
They're not travelling while on the ground, they're simply manoeuvring, so their speed - or lack of - is immaterial
Edited by Phatboy317 on Tuesday 21st October 07:53
Phatboy317 said:
I'm not complaining, simply pointing out shortcomings as I see them.
I can't change anything, but I can try to make others aware of said shortcomings, and, hopefully, make a difference.
What is your persuasion other than to complain about what I'm doing?
So, you are hoping to make a difference, you just don't want to say what difference you want to make. I expect that is because you don't want to subject your alternative scenario to scrutiny.I can't change anything, but I can try to make others aware of said shortcomings, and, hopefully, make a difference.
What is your persuasion other than to complain about what I'm doing?
My 'persuasion' is to point out the shortcomings in your argument, and hopefully make a difference.
blueg33 said:
The cause of the accident would be me pulling out in front of you. I have eyes, and I have two of them which in theory gives me depth of field and the ability to judge speed. If the road previously had a 60mph limit though, the result is the same and you wouldnt have been speeding.
As I have said, speed must ALWAYS be a factor but it does not follow that it is a cause most of the time.
OK. I can't agree with that - I think it's unnecessarily reductive. A major contribution to the accident is indeed you pulling out. However, I am experienced enough to have identified that as a risk, and yet didn't do anything to mitigate it, in a context where I also knew that my speed was unexpectedly high and that it would be quite serious if anyone else made a mistake, which they do quite often. All the while I was deliberately breaking a rule that society decided upon in one way or another. To me, when combined, that's solidly in the realms of 'cause' right alongside your mistake, much more so than the simple fact of me being there at the wrong time.As I have said, speed must ALWAYS be a factor but it does not follow that it is a cause most of the time.
Would it be different if the posted limit was 60mph? In terms of people's expectations, yes, and they do make quite a difference. That's the easy bit. In terms of personal responsibility, it's harder to say. Maybe. Should I slow down for every junction? There's the maxim of 'be able stop in the distance you can reasonably expect to remain clear', and my reasonable expectation does change between a 30mph housing estate and a 60mph country A road.
If you (generally, not personally) are in favour of a less restrictive speed limit regime, then you have to take much greater personal responsibility, and part of doing that is to accept that inappropriate speed can be close enough to a cause of accidents. You also have to accept that part of what constitutes this unsigned appropriate speed is, legitimately, what other people want and expect it to be, and not just what you can physically handle on an empty road.
If you want rid of the law that says, 'you shall do at most N mph here', you'd better be prepared to lose all of the protections you gain from saying, 'but I was only doing N mph', and with all the above in mind, it might not always work in your favour.
Edited by trashbat on Tuesday 21st October 08:28
The problem that I have with the speed limit regime is that limits are often set arbitarily with no real logic and as a result have lost the trust of thinking drivers.
A prime example
I can drive along a 50mph limit A road in Oxfordshire, as soon as I cross into Gloucestershire the speed limit increases to 60mph. The road hasnt changed, the number of junctions hasnt changed, the surface is the same, the gradients are the same etc. The only difference is that Oxfordshire use more speed cameras than Gloucestershire.
Am I more likely to die on that road in Gloucestershire than Oxfordshire, accident stats would say no.
There are so many examples of stupid speed limts. To a large degree road conditions, format etc naturally limit people's speed and more trust should be given back to the driver especially out of town, that way drivers will actually become better IMO rather than delegating responsibility to the state.
There will always be twonks who are stupid and reckless but reducing speed limts wont change that.
A prime example
I can drive along a 50mph limit A road in Oxfordshire, as soon as I cross into Gloucestershire the speed limit increases to 60mph. The road hasnt changed, the number of junctions hasnt changed, the surface is the same, the gradients are the same etc. The only difference is that Oxfordshire use more speed cameras than Gloucestershire.
Am I more likely to die on that road in Gloucestershire than Oxfordshire, accident stats would say no.
There are so many examples of stupid speed limts. To a large degree road conditions, format etc naturally limit people's speed and more trust should be given back to the driver especially out of town, that way drivers will actually become better IMO rather than delegating responsibility to the state.
There will always be twonks who are stupid and reckless but reducing speed limts wont change that.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff