Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents

[rambo19]

The way I see it is that speed can and does make the outcome of an accident far worse.............

[Durzel]

trashbat said:

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.

The system has to pander to the lowest common denominator. This is always the issue with debates about speeding, etc - people look at their own abilities (or belief in ones abilities) and extrapolate that onto every other driver on the road.

The problem I find with excessive speeding, more often than not, is the unpredictable reactions of others. There are, whether you're prepared to accept it or not, a great number - easily the majority of road users - who do not care about driving beyond getting from A to B. These utilitarians aren't invested in "the driving experience", so they are barely engaged by it. This coupled with a fairly low driving standard required to have a full licence, with no retests in a meaningful timeframe, is a bad combination.

So yeah, this is Pistonheads so I guess most of the people on here could do 100mph safely on most NSL roads, in their cars with above average brakes and acceleration. It's the other people occupying the road, that have just as much right to be there, that are the limiting factor. In light of that I think it's justifiable that the government legislates with these people in mind, to keep them safe. Unless there is a sea change in how we teach people to drive, and retest them periodically so that they can continue making their 2 tonne blocks of metal move safely, then I can't see this changing. Nor should it.

[Phatboy317]

Durzel said:

The problem I find with excessive speeding, more often than not, is the unpredictable reactions of others.

You do know how to slow down when necessary, don't you?

[singlecoil]

Durzel said:

The system has to pander to the lowest common denominator. This is always the issue with debates about speeding, etc - people look at their own abilities (or belief in ones abilities) and extrapolate that onto every other driver on the road.

The problem I find with excessive speeding, more often than not, is the unpredictable reactions of others. There are, whether you're prepared to accept it or not, a great number - easily the majority of road users - who do not care about driving beyond getting from A to B. These utilitarians aren't invested in "the driving experience", so they are barely engaged by it. This coupled with a fairly low driving standard required to have a full licence, with no retests in a meaningful timeframe, is a bad combination.

So yeah, this is Pistonheads so I guess most of the people on here could do 100mph safely on most NSL roads, in their cars with above average brakes and acceleration. It's the other people occupying the road, that have just as much right to be there, that are the limiting factor. In light of that I think it's justifiable that the government legislates with these people in mind, to keep them safe. Unless there is a sea change in how we teach people to drive, and retest them periodically so that they can continue making their 2 tonne blocks of metal move safely, then I can't see this changing. Nor should it.

Good post.

I'll only add that I for one am prepared, happy even, to drive within the speed limit if it means that those who are not well equipped to choose suitable speeds for themselves are discouraged from driving at whatever speed they might otherwise choose.

[emmaT2014]

blueg33 said:

Dammit said:

If you maintain the same speed you are equally as dangerous in both, if you slow down then you reduce the threat you represent, so if you obeyed the law you would present less of a risk in the 50.

By that logic, ignoring the law in the 50 and driving at 60 I represent no more risk than I do in the 60.

The point is that speed limits have to make sense to be respected. And the above circumstance simply makes no sense.

I still ptresnt far more risk if I drive at 40mph 1 inch behind the car in front than if I drive at 60mph in a 50mph limit.

It really isnt speeding that the problem, its poor driving, sometime speeding is a sympton o poor driving, but really that means inapprpriate speed for the conditions

Your point is complete BS so you are really not worth answering and would probably not understand an answer if collided with it.
How's that?

[Rovinghawk]

emmaT2014 said:

blueg33 said:

The point is that speed limits have to make sense to be respected.

Your point is complete BS so you are really not worth answering and would probably not understand an answer if collided with it.

I've trimmed it down a bit for brevity's sake.

The remaining point from bg33 seems to be quite sensible and relevant. How would you answer him on this?

[singlecoil]

emmaT2014 said:

Your point is complete BS so you are really not worth answering and would probably not understand an answer if collided with it.
How's that?

I think you need to calm down and argue your points properly.

[blueg33]

emmaT2014 said:

Your point is complete BS so you are really not worth answering and would probably not understand an answer if collided with it.
How's that?

How on earth is the point BS? People are not unthinking morons as a rule, laws only work if they are accepted, by doing stupied things with speed limits as per my example (which is a real one) that erodes the trust and respect that people have in limits generally. A driver can usually juge the road conditions and drive accordingly.

The same road where it changes from one county to another drops in limit by 10mph. I would driving legally in one county move a cars length and be driving illegally by speeding despite the fact that my speed hasnt changes. How does that increase my chances of having an accident?

You have fail to answer that question - and I suspect that the reason you have failed to answer it and have just got all arsey is because the point it makes does not support your argument.

As a related point, in my day job of being a developer I often have to pay for and construct entrances to sites. In many cases we have to measure the average speed along a raod and design to that speed. Very often the average speed is measurably higher than the speed limit so we are required to design to that speed not the speed limit which makes sense. What doesnt make sense is why the speed limit is set lower than the speed at which people drive perfectly safely.

How do I know that they are driving safely? Because we also have to review accident records and pretty much without exception there are very few incidents in these areas where people are speeding. The incidents are at traffic lights and roundabouts where they are stopping and having to look around etc. So yet again, further evidence that it is not speeding per se that causes accidents

Edited by blueg33 on Wednesday 22 October 14:34

[trashbat]

Durzel said:

The system has to pander to the lowest common denominator. This is always the issue with debates about speeding, etc - people look at their own abilities (or belief in ones abilities) and extrapolate that onto every other driver on the road.

<snip>

I agree with the para about unpredictable reactions, I'm not sure about PHers being much more competent, but I disagree with this bit.

Catering to the lowest common denominator is catering to the worst drivers on the road, a system for idiots, even though the average competency is significantly higher. That probably does save lives in the short term, but has a cyclical effect whereby for example the burden of decision making and responsibility is reduced and the average competency actually declines. And then what? Dumb it down further?

If you were in charge of infant education, and based your literacy curriculum around the least capable child in the class, what happens to the rest? Now it's not that simple to draw a parallel with road safety and the small problem of peoples' lives or deaths, not least because drivers have much more of an effect on each other, but you can see my point.

Block the sightlines with barriers at every roundabout and you reduce people's reliance on their anticipation and planning skills. Reduce the speed limit to a level where you don't really need to react to most hazards and you reduce people's reliance on their observation and decision making. Whether it improves safety in the long term is therefore really complicated, and I don't have the answer.

[blueg33]

trashbat said:

Durzel said:

The system has to pander to the lowest common denominator. This is always the issue with debates about speeding, etc - people look at their own abilities (or belief in ones abilities) and extrapolate that onto every other driver on the road.

<snip>

I agree with the para about unpredictable reactions, I'm not sure about PHers being much more competent, but I disagree with this bit.

Catering to the lowest common denominator is catering to the worst drivers on the road, a system for idiots, even though the average competency is significantly higher. That probably does save lives in the short term, but has a cyclical effect whereby for example the burden of decision making and responsibility is reduced and the average competency actually declines. And then what? Dumb it down further?

If you were in charge of infant education, and based your literacy curriculum around the least capable child in the class, what happens to the rest? Now it's not that simple to draw a parallel with road safety and the small problem of peoples' lives or deaths, not least because drivers have much more of an effect on each other, but you can see my point.

Block the sightlines with barriers at every roundabout and you reduce people's reliance on their anticipation and planning skills. Reduce the speed limit to a level where you don't really need to react to most hazards and you reduce people's reliance on their observation and decision making. Whether it improves safety in the long term is therefore really complicated, and I don't have the answer.

Exactly.

Nanny state just enables people to abdicate all responsibility.

No speeding but road related.

There is a well known junction in the Netherlands used heavily by cyclists, pedestrians and cars. There were traffic lights and stop lines etc but the accident rate was very high. The planners removes all the stop lines, the traffic lights, the kerbs and made the surfaces the same on the pavements as on the road. People now have to make their own way across and work it out for themselves. The accident rate has plummeted and the traffic flows just as freely.

I truely belive that the majority of people will be better at driving if they were trusted to act responsibly

[chrisgtx]

As an example of how the anti speeding agenda doesn't work in the long run and just lowers driving standards, have a drive in Australia, it's terrifying!.
Really,it's horrendous how they drive,no concentration,no idea how to drive to the conditions, all the time being bombarded with 'No Hooning' 'Don't speed' signs. Basically,everything is fine as long as you don't speed.

[emmaT2014]

Rovinghawk said:

emmaT2014 said:

blueg33 said:

The point is that speed limits have to make sense to be respected.

Your point is complete BS so you are really not worth answering and would probably not understand an answer if collided with it.

I've trimmed it down a bit for brevity's sake.

The remaining point from bg33 seems to be quite sensible and relevant. How would you answer him on this?

I was going to make a reply but i think a repeat of this sums my position up completely:

Dammit said:

If you maintain the same speed you are equally as dangerous in both, if you slow down then you reduce the threat you represent, so if you obeyed the law you would present less of a risk in the 50.

[blueg33]

emmaT2014 said:

Rovinghawk said:

emmaT2014 said:

blueg33 said:

The point is that speed limits have to make sense to be respected.

Your point is complete BS so you are really not worth answering and would probably not understand an answer if collided with it.

I've trimmed it down a bit for brevity's sake.

The remaining point from bg33 seems to be quite sensible and relevant. How would you answer him on this?

I was going to make a reply but i think a repeat of this sums my position up completely:

Dammit said:

If you maintain the same speed you are equally as dangerous in both, if you slow down then you reduce the threat you represent, so if you obeyed the law you would present less of a risk in the 50.

That doesnt answer the point at all, all that says is the blindingly obvious

Earlier you asserted that "Speeding Causes Accidents". I have provided a real scenario and you have repeatedly failed to answer.

[Durzel]

Phatboy317 said:

You do know how to slow down when necessary, don't you?

My point is that you could do 120mph+ (for example) on motorways and it would be other drivers reacting poorly and unpredictably to you bearing down on them at that speed that would make you come a cropper more often than not, rather than losing control.

trashbat said:

Catering to the lowest common denominator is catering to the worst drivers on the road, a system for idiots, even though the average competency is significantly higher.

The average competency may well be higher (hard to prove objectively), but the "worst drivers on the road" nevertheless have a full UK license to drive, and have as much legal right to be on the public road as you do. Therefore the system has to by definition at least bear those drivers in mind.

I stand by my point that the worst drivers around aren't necessarily just technically deficient, but probably also don't really care about driving beyond the fact that it moves them from A to B. Lack of engagement when you're doing something that will cause serious damage and injury to others is not a great combination. You can't force people to be engaged with driving, but you can make the bar for entry sufficiently high so that driving and the ability to drive becomes an enlightened feat, rather than just an obstacle in a teens life as it is at the moment (ala trained to pass a test, rather than to drive).

Edited by Durzel on Wednesday 22 October 15:23

[Rovinghawk]

emmaT2014 said:

Rovinghawk said:

emmaT2014 said:

blueg33 said:

The point is that speed limits have to make sense to be respected.

Your point is complete BS so you are really not worth answering and would probably not understand an answer if collided with it.

quite sensible and relevant. How would you answer him on this?

I was going to make a reply but i think a repeat of this sums my position up completely:

Dammit said:

If you maintain the same speed you are equally as dangerous in both, if you slow down then you reduce the threat you represent, so if you obeyed the law you would present less of a risk in the 50.

How do you answer his (and others') statement that speed limits have to be sensible to be respected?

[AA999]

Durzel - speed limits do indeed pander to the lowest common denominator....its often the lowest common denominators that are involved in accidents I would argue (no proof of this of course, just a logical guess).

But like I said in one of my earlier posts, there has to be a balance struck between efficiency of transport and safety, I think the balance over the last number of years is tipping too far in one direction.
Some might say how can you not willingly allow the balance to tip further towards safety?....well I think the 'safety' factor is being overlooked in many cases with many speed limits being introduced for reasons such as pressure groups wishing their property values to rise with reduced traffic noise for example, also the fact that if you take away driver involvement you end up with a disassociated driver from the actions he/she is responsible for whilst driving.

What I mean here is that if all roads have speed limits such that the driver decision to brake and slow down for conditions ahead is removed every time, then the driver will become drone-like and drive in a manner where by his/her braking frequency and alertness is reduced and almost over-looked. I don't think this is a great step in the name of safety.

Likewise, turning to simple one-action automated methods of policing (ie. speed cameras) rather than actual humans in police cars allows driving standards to fall, which in turn lowers the bar of the lowest common denominator, creating a downward cycle of events.

[irocfan]

emmaT2014 said:

Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents!

Back to the original proposition: it can and does.

seriously??? Put in simple terms so you can understand - if speeding caused accidents why aren't we knee deep in accidents since 90% of drivers speed or have done (and the other 10% are liars). Speeding in and of itself does not cause accidents - inappropriate speed can cause an accident as can any number of other factors.

[blueg33]

EmmaT

Only posts in spl mainly on driving law and lists her/his region as Hendon.......

Talk about an obvious troll - i was struggling to understand how some one could be so obtuse and blinkered. Now I know

[Durzel]

AA999 said:

Durzel - speed limits do indeed pander to the lowest common denominator....its often the lowest common denominators that are involved in accidents I would argue (no proof of this of course, just a logical guess).

But like I said in one of my earlier posts, there has to be a balance struck between efficiency of transport and safety, I think the balance over the last number of years is tipping too far in one direction.
Some might say how can you not willingly allow the balance to tip further towards safety?....well I think the 'safety' factor is being overlooked in many cases with many speed limits being introduced for reasons such as pressure groups wishing their property values to rise with reduced traffic noise for example, also the fact that if you take away driver involvement you end up with a disassociated driver from the actions he/she is responsible for whilst driving.

What I mean here is that if all roads have speed limits such that the driver decision to brake and slow down for conditions ahead is removed every time, then the driver will become drone-like and drive in a manner where by his/her braking frequency and alertness is reduced and almost over-looked. I don't think this is a great step in the name of safety.

Likewise, turning to simple one-action automated methods of policing (ie. speed cameras) rather than actual humans in police cars allows driving standards to fall, which in turn lowers the bar of the lowest common denominator, creating a downward cycle of events.

I tend to agree with you on a personal level. The times where I speed on a country lane or something I feel more engaged and alert with the driving experience than I do just commuting to work, and there is something to be said about the system restricting every facet of driving to the point where it IS just barely more than an automated process that transports you to and from work.

On the subject of speed cameras though, there was a thread on here a while back asking about whether people would trade a GATSO for a traffic cop, and if memory serves people still wouldn't want the cop there either. It's also a question that is somewhat academic because it's easy to say "yeah let's have a living cop instead" with full knowledge that it's purely hypothetical and will never happen. Put an actual cop there with a speed gun, and their attitude would probably change. Whilst they could use discretion they'd still be stopping you from "enjoying the road", which is the elephant in the room in these sorts of discussions (i.e. people only champion Police discretion when it goes in their favour).

I always drive to the conditions, and to be brutally honest only consider speed limits most of the time (outside of residential zones anyway) in the context of how likely I am to be caught, rather than thinking that it is much more than guidance as to how fast an average driver in an average car should be going. I don't like to think of myself as average That all said, I hold my hands up when I'm caught because I'm a responsible adult who is aware that speed limits and enforcement thereof exist.

Edited by Durzel on Wednesday 22 October 15:35

[emmaT2014]

blueg33 said:

emmaT2014 said:

Rovinghawk said:

emmaT2014 said:

blueg33 said:

The point is that speed limits have to make sense to be respected.

Your point is complete BS so you are really not worth answering and would probably not understand an answer if collided with it.

I've trimmed it down a bit for brevity's sake.

The remaining point from bg33 seems to be quite sensible and relevant. How would you answer him on this?

I was going to make a reply but i think a repeat of this sums my position up completely:

Dammit said:

If you maintain the same speed you are equally as dangerous in both, if you slow down then you reduce the threat you represent, so if you obeyed the law you would present less of a risk in the 50.

That doesnt answer the point at all, all that says is the blindingly obvious

Earlier you asserted that "Speeding Causes Accidents". I have provided a real scenario and you have repeatedly failed to answer.

No. I said "it can and it does". What I did not say is it always does; that would be stupid, as stupid as your question perhaps because that is the basis of your premise.