Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents

Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents

Author
Discussion

trashbat

6,005 posts

152 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
I agree with all of that. I did an advanced driving exam a couple of years ago and part of it included a 30mph stretch that's allegedly only that way because of a rich councillor's residence. The ex-police examiner was quite vocal about the damage it does to the relationship between driver and authority.

I'm also seeing my local roads, including the oft-spoke of A272, having their limits dropped. It irritates me a great deal, especially when I've tried to assume more personal responsibility for my driving and yet the system is keen on pandering to the lowest common denominator.

However... the way to attack it is a lot more nuanced than 'speed isn't dangerous'.

I don't know quite what it is either, but involves driver training, personal responsibility, society properly defining what it wants from our roads, bringing back an element of democracy and accountability to decision making, and picking your battles. Sometimes speed limits aren't all about safety and sometimes an apparently low limit can be justified.

AA999

5,180 posts

216 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
blueg33 said:
As I have said, speed must ALWAYS be a factor but it does not follow that it is a cause most of the time.
I mentioned earlier that including speed as a factor in every collision is the same as saying a vehicle was involved in the collision.
To have a collision you must have speed, but to say it is a 'factor' is the same as simply saying "a collision occurred" which doesn't really progress any point or mean much.

The term "factor" to me states that something over and above the normal conditions contributed to an outcome - in this case the outcome of topic is an accident/collision.
So speed alone is not really a 'factor', but 'excessive speed', or 'speeding' would be a factor as this is something that causes the braking distance to be beyond the point of another object and so resulting in a collision for example.

Phatboy317

801 posts

117 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
singlecoil said:
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.
It's like when someone keeps saying that 1+1=3, you try to make them aware of their mistake. You don't necessarily need to tell them how to fix the consequences of their mistake.

singlecoil said:
My 'persuasion' is to point out the shortcomings in your argument, and hopefully make a difference.
So,point out what you think the shortcomings are and we can discuss them.

singlecoil

33,317 posts

245 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
Phatboy317 said:
singlecoil said:
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.
It's like when someone keeps saying that 1+1=3, you try to make them aware of their mistake. You don't necessarily need to tell them how to fix the consequences of their mistake.
Running with your example, the correct thing to do would be to tell them that the answer is 2, and show them why.

Phatboy317 said:
singlecoil said:
My 'persuasion' is to point out the shortcomings in your argument, and hopefully make a difference.
So,point out what you think the shortcomings are and we can discuss them.
Well, the main shortcoming is that you persist in trying to wriggle out of putting forward an alternative. It's becoming very obvious, but I feel it needs to be pointed out just so we are absolutely clear about it.

HTH

Mill Wheel

6,149 posts

195 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
trashbat said:
K. 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.

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
If the scenario were to happen, and the driver pulling out caused a fatality, he would face a charge of causing death by careless driving, irrespective of the speed of the vehicle they were in collision with, and whether it was over the limit.
Pulling out would be the cause, speed the factor that contributed to the death.

singlecoil

33,317 posts

245 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
Mill Wheel said:
If the scenario were to happen, and the driver pulling out caused a fatality, he would face a charge of causing death by careless driving, irrespective of the speed of the vehicle they were in collision with, and whether it was over the limit.
Pulling out would be the cause, speed the factor that contributed to the death.
Not quite as simple as that. The fact that the two vehicles were in the same place at the same time would be the cause. A thought experiment easily proves this- let's suppose that instead of 60 mph, the car on the main road is doing 240 mph. If every driver who wanted to turn onto a main road had to allow for such a case, then traffic would pretty much grind to a halt.

I daresay the driver pulling out would face a charge, as indeed would the other driver if he survived, but who would be found guilty would depend on the facts of the matter.

Mill Wheel

6,149 posts

195 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
singlecoil said:
Mill Wheel said:
If the scenario were to happen, and the driver pulling out caused a fatality, he would face a charge of causing death by careless driving, irrespective of the speed of the vehicle they were in collision with, and whether it was over the limit.
Pulling out would be the cause, speed the factor that contributed to the death.
Not quite as simple as that. The fact that the two vehicles were in the same place at the same time would be the cause. A thought experiment easily proves this- let's suppose that instead of 60 mph, the car on the main road is doing 240 mph. If every driver who wanted to turn onto a main road had to allow for such a case, then traffic would pretty much grind to a halt.

I daresay the driver pulling out would face a charge, as indeed would the other driver if he survived, but who would be found guilty would depend on the facts of the matter.
What if a motorcycle is doing 100 mph in a 60 limit, and an oncoming driver decides he can turn INTO a sideroad before the rider gets there, fails, and kills the rider?

Oncoming driver is guilty of causing death by careless driving - because the turning across is the CAUSE, the motorcyclists speed is the contributing factor.
Of course if the rider survives, he faces his own charges... speeding.

Edited by Mill Wheel on Wednesday 22 October 20:14

trashbat

6,005 posts

152 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
Mill Wheel said:
What if a motorcycle is doing 100 mph in a 60 limit, and an oncoming driver decides he can turn INTO a sideroad before the rider gets there, fails, and kills the rider?

Oncoming driver is guilty of {b]causing[/b] death by careless driving - because the turning across is the CAUSE, the motorcyclists speed is the contributing factor.
Of course if the rider survives, he faces his own charges... speeding.
Your scenario is confused by the fact that one of the participants is dead, so cannot either defend themselves or be punished, and also as a result of the death, the respective outcomes of the two people's actions are inherently unbalanced.

I think you're also making the mistake of confusing a legal settlement with individual moral responsibility. You had the opportunity to slow down and avoid the accident, so even if someone else made their own mistake, and even if the court spreads the blame, you're still responsible for your own actions. Those actions might have meant you collided with someone at 100 mph.

maxxy5

771 posts

163 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
supertouring said:
Lowering the speed limit will cause more crashes, of the head on variety, because general traffic will be travelling slower over that stretch of road and will therefore encourage more people to attempt an overtake.

The higher the speed limit, the safer it will be.
On the other hand... when are you more likely to overtake a dawdler doing 40 mph? In a 50 or a 60 zone? Assuming most drivers want to stay roughly within the speed limit.


maxxy5

771 posts

163 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
That sounds like the same scenario as this accident - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-29084...

singlecoil

33,317 posts

245 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
Mill Wheel said:
singlecoil said:
Mill Wheel said:
If the scenario were to happen, and the driver pulling out caused a fatality, he would face a charge of causing death by careless driving, irrespective of the speed of the vehicle they were in collision with, and whether it was over the limit.
Pulling out would be the cause, speed the factor that contributed to the death.
Not quite as simple as that. The fact that the two vehicles were in the same place at the same time would be the cause. A thought experiment easily proves this- let's suppose that instead of 60 mph, the car on the main road is doing 240 mph. If every driver who wanted to turn onto a main road had to allow for such a case, then traffic would pretty much grind to a halt.

I daresay the driver pulling out would face a charge, as indeed would the other driver if he survived, but who would be found guilty would depend on the facts of the matter.
What if a motorcycle is doing 100 mph in a 60 limit, and an oncoming driver decides he can turn INTO a sideroad before the rider gets there, fails, and kills the rider?

Oncoming driver is guilty of {b]causing[/b] death by careless driving - because the turning across is the CAUSE, the motorcyclists speed is the contributing factor.
Of course if the rider survives, he faces his own charges... speeding.
What if, what if. You've just proved my point, each case depends on the facts.

There was a real case very similar to your hypothetical case recently, and the PH jury was very much divided, although IIRC the majority blamed the biker.

And BTW the driver didn't 'cause' the accident, that cause was a combination of factors, and the driver's actions were one of them.


vonhosen

40,202 posts

216 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
Phatboy317 said:
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.

They're not travelling while on the ground, they're simply manoeuvring, so their speed - or lack of - is immaterial
So why do their SOPs generally mention a speed they should limit themselves to on the ramps & for the taxi ways?

Phatboy317

801 posts

117 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
So why do their SOPs generally mention a speed they should limit themselves to on the ramps & for the taxi ways?
Well, the main reason large passenger planes keep their speed down on taxiways is to avoid overtaxing the tyres on the front landing gear, and to avoid unnecessary brake use. There's a LOT of weight involved.
For small planes, even low ground speeds are quite fast, considering they're not nearly as easy to steer and to keep in a straight line on the ground as a car is.

Anyway, the low speeds don't really matter, as they aren't actually travelling.


Edited by Phatboy317 on Tuesday 21st October 18:27

Phatboy317

801 posts

117 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
singlecoil said:
Running with your example, the correct thing to do would be to tell them that the answer is 2, and show them why.
What do you think I'm trying to do?

singlecoil said:
Well, the main shortcoming is that you persist in trying to wriggle out of putting forward an alternative. It's becoming very obvious, but I feel it needs to be pointed out just so we are absolutely clear about it.
You're making things up. I'm not trying to wiggle out of anything. It was never my intention to put forward any alternatives (alternatives to what exactly?) and you're the only one even mentioning it.

I'm starting to think that this is just a diversionary tactic on your part.

HertsBiker

6,300 posts

270 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
Seems to me that lowering speed limits all the time is not preventing accidents, it just reduces the damage. This is not acceptable, we should be improving training and skill levels so we can raise limits and benefit from higher speeds.

Dammit

3,790 posts

207 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
How do we benefit from higher speeds?

singlecoil

33,317 posts

245 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
Phatboy317 said:
singlecoil said:
Running with your example, the correct thing to do would be to tell them that the answer is 2, and show them why.
What do you think I'm trying to do?
I think know that you are trying to have a jolly good moan about speed enforcement issues while not putting forward any alternatives at all, let alone viable alternatives.

Phatboy317 said:
singlecoil said:
Well, the main shortcoming is that you persist in trying to wriggle out of putting forward an alternative. It's becoming very obvious, but I feel it needs to be pointed out just so we are absolutely clear about it.
You're making things up. I'm not trying to wiggle out of anything. It was never my intention to put forward any alternatives (alternatives to what exactly?) and you're the only one even mentioning it.

I'm starting to think that this is just a diversionary tactic on your part.
Well, we are still waiting to hear your alternatives, I could hardly be trying to divert you because you have not so far attempted to go anywhere with this. You are just being a moaning Minnie.

delboy735

1,656 posts

201 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
Dammit said:
How do we benefit from higher speeds?


We arrive at destinations a little quicker !!!!
Clearly at 60mph, I will arrive at my destination 400 miles away, a sight sooner than had I been stuck at 50mph.

Dammit

3,790 posts

207 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
I bet you won't, as the time you gain travelling at 60 rather than 40 simply gets you to the next set of traffic lights/congestion/bus very slightly sooner.

Unless it's 3am, that said, or a clear motorway - but this topic seems to be about A and B roads.

Phatboy317

801 posts

117 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
singlecoil said:
I think know that you are trying to have a jolly good moan about speed enforcement issues
Care to point out where I'm supposed to have done that?

singlecoil said:
Well, we are still waiting to hear your alternatives, I could hardly be trying to divert you because you have not so far attempted to go anywhere with this. You are just being a moaning Minnie.
Now you're bordering on trolling. I have nothing more to say to you.