Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents

[blueg33]

emmaT2014 said:

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.

I give up

You are unable to address the point about arbitary speed limits, yu contunure to imply that speeding is the main cause of accidents, where it isnt, you have failed to address the point about trust or the lack of caused by the aritarry speed limits.

[singlecoil]

blueg33 said:

I give up

You are unable to address the point about arbitrary speed limits, you continue to imply that speeding is the main cause of accidents, where it isnt, you have failed to address the point about trust or the lack of caused by the arbitrary speed limits.

I hadn't noticed her doing that, are you sure?

I would also point out that speed limits are, by their very nature, arbitrary. What else could they be?

[emmaT2014]

blueg33 said:

I give up

You are unable to address the point about arbitary speed limits, yu contunure to imply that speeding is the main cause of accidents, where it isnt, you have failed to address the point about trust or the lack of caused by the aritarry speed limits.

I haven't seen any need or call to address arbitrary speed limits. I do not imply in any way that speeding is the main cause of accidents. Why should I address the nature of and attitude to speed limits? I have made no claim about them.
You seem to simply as me loads of unrelated questions when I make a statement or point.
To put it quite simply and with nothing implied; your point makes no sense and I do not feel motivated to discuss the subject matter with you as you don't seem able.

[emmaT2014]

singlecoil said:

blueg33 said:

I give up

You are unable to address the point about arbitrary speed limits, you continue to imply that speeding is the main cause of accidents, where it isnt, you have failed to address the point about trust or the lack of caused by the arbitrary speed limits.

I hadn't noticed her doing that, are you sure?

I would also point out that speed limits are, by their very nature, arbitrary. What else could they be?

To use a common PH phrase: what he said^

[blueg33]

emmaT2014 said:

singlecoil said:

blueg33 said:

I give up

You are unable to address the point about arbitrary speed limits, you continue to imply that speeding is the main cause of accidents, where it isnt, you have failed to address the point about trust or the lack of caused by the arbitrary speed limits.

I hadn't noticed her doing that, are you sure?

I would also point out that speed limits are, by their very nature, arbitrary. What else could they be?

To use a common PH phrase: what he said^

Maybe, there sre so many daft posts on here that I have sort of lost the will to live, many I am confusing one with another

The point about speed limits being artibary by their very nature is sort of right and sort of wrong There are guildelines around setting them and they are supposed to be logical. Its the non logical ones where the issue lies and that is what causes people to question them and maybe ignore them.

Emma has implied that speeding increases the risk of an accident occuring, this is the point that I dispute. If by speeding, she means breaking tthe speed limit then just the fact that the limit is being broken does not automatically mean that the risk is increased. In many cases the risk will stay the same. See my Oxon/Glos example above

[singlecoil]

blueg33 said:

The point about speed limits being artibary by their very nature is sort of right and sort of wrong There are guildelines around setting them and they are supposed to be logical. Its the non logical ones where the issue lies and that is what causes people to question them and maybe ignore them.

People can question and ignore speed limits as much as they like, or as much as they can afford, rather. One man's logic is another illogic.

blueg33 said:

Emma has implied that speeding increases the risk of an accident occuring, this is the point that I dispute. If by speeding, she means breaking tthe speed limit then just the fact that the limit is being broken does not automatically mean that the risk is increased. In many cases the risk will stay the same. See my Oxon/Glos example above

Let's look at that example more closely. Firstly, it could be said that where the limit is lower, other road users will be expecting you to keep to it, so there is increased (very slightly admittedly) danger there. Secondly, the powers in the county with the lower limit have chosen to have a lower risk level, which is their right.

It's also worth pointing out that people who are in a hurry are inclined to make mistakes, as your own briskly written post with its typos proves

[blueg33]

singlecoil said:

blueg33 said:

The point about speed limits being artibary by their very nature is sort of right and sort of wrong There are guildelines around setting them and they are supposed to be logical. Its the non logical ones where the issue lies and that is what causes people to question them and maybe ignore them.

People can question and ignore speed limits as much as they like, or as much as they can afford, rather. One man's logic is another illogic.

blueg33 said:

Emma has implied that speeding increases the risk of an accident occuring, this is the point that I dispute. If by speeding, she means breaking tthe speed limit then just the fact that the limit is being broken does not automatically mean that the risk is increased. In many cases the risk will stay the same. See my Oxon/Glos example above

Let's look at that example more closely. Firstly, it could be said that where the limit is lower, other road users will be expecting you to keep to it, so there is increased (very slightly admittedly) danger there. Secondly, the powers in the county with the lower limit have chosen to have a lower risk level, which is their right.

It's also worth pointing out that people who are in a hurry are inclined to make mistakes, as your own briskly written post with its typos proves

Typing mistakes are because I am crap at typing and posting here is secondary to what I am doing at the time.

Yes the powers that be have decided on a lower speedlimit, but that misses the point that the risk at 60mph is the same on the same road whether it is legal or not. The fact that oxon really like their speed cameras just helps reinforce the thought that the speed limit at 50mph has been set for the wrong reasons not the right reasons.

In terms of people ignoring speed limits there are locations where most cars ignore the limit with no evidence of increased accident risk. I would argue that the limit in those locations is too low. Again, this makes people start to question the reason for that limit.

I have no issues with speed limits, I have issues with illogical limits and issues with those that think speed enforcement should be the key method of improving road safety. There are issues with driving standards generally and road design that if addressed would have a much bigger impact on accident rates

[Phatboy317]

Durzel said:

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.

And my point is that if you can slow down when necessary then you can also slow down when prudent.
And that includes cases where you see slower-moving traffic ahead - whoever suggested that you should just continue to blast past them at huge speeds?
Do you continue to drive at whatever speed you're doing when you see children playing on the road, or horses, cattle or deer on the road, or do you slow right down, regardless of what the speed limit is?
And if not, then you probably identify with the lowest common denominator.

Edited by Phatboy317 on Wednesday 22 October 18:17

[emmaT2014]

blueg33 said:

singlecoil said:

blueg33 said:

The point about speed limits being artibary by their very nature is sort of right and sort of wrong There are guildelines around setting them and they are supposed to be logical. Its the non logical ones where the issue lies and that is what causes people to question them and maybe ignore them.

People can question and ignore speed limits as much as they like, or as much as they can afford, rather. One man's logic is another illogic.

blueg33 said:

Emma has implied that speeding increases the risk of an accident occuring, this is the point that I dispute. If by speeding, she means breaking tthe speed limit then just the fact that the limit is being broken does not automatically mean that the risk is increased. In many cases the risk will stay the same. See my Oxon/Glos example above

Let's look at that example more closely. Firstly, it could be said that where the limit is lower, other road users will be expecting you to keep to it, so there is increased (very slightly admittedly) danger there. Secondly, the powers in the county with the lower limit have chosen to have a lower risk level, which is their right.

It's also worth pointing out that people who are in a hurry are inclined to make mistakes, as your own briskly written post with its typos proves

Typing mistakes are because I am crap at typing and posting here is secondary to what I am doing at the time.

Yes the powers that be have decided on a lower speedlimit, but that misses the point that the risk at 60mph is the same on the same road whether it is legal or not. The fact that oxon really like their speed cameras just helps reinforce the thought that the speed limit at 50mph has been set for the wrong reasons not the right reasons.

In terms of people ignoring speed limits there are locations where most cars ignore the limit with no evidence of increased accident risk. I would argue that the limit in those locations is too low. Again, this makes people start to question the reason for that limit.

I have no issues with speed limits, I have issues with illogical limits and issues with those that think speed enforcement should be the key method of improving road safety. There are issues with driving standards generally and road design that if addressed would have a much bigger impact on accident rates

No you are wrong again.

An increase in speed of traffic above the posted limit causes the rate and hence the risk of collisions to increase; the relationship has been established to be a square-law.
The increase in injuries rises at an even faster rate.
While you see no increase in risk in your simple example that is because you are dealing with a single incident in a single change of limit that does not take a traffic system into account. That is why your example is BS, as I claimed above.
While you may have a rather simplistic understanding that causes you to believe what you do, that being you see no impact of speed on collisions, it does raise a serious issue. How can road safety orgaisations make the somewhat less deep thinking appreciate that what they do on the road does have an impact on their safety and that of others?

Convincing yourself with your BS is very worrying and illustrates a mighty problem.

I do hope you drive in an area the is nowhere near me.

[Rovinghawk]

Would you nevertheless accept that the unrealistically low level of some speed limits diminishes respect for these limits?

[singlecoil]

blueg33 said:

Typing mistakes are because I am crap at typing and posting here is secondary to what I am doing at the time.

Yes the powers that be have decided on a lower speedlimit, but that misses the point that the risk at 60mph is the same on the same road whether it is legal or not. The fact that oxon really like their speed cameras just helps reinforce the thought that the speed limit at 50mph has been set for the wrong reasons not the right reasons.

In terms of people ignoring speed limits there are locations where most cars ignore the limit with no evidence of increased accident risk. I would argue that the limit in those locations is too low. Again, this makes people start to question the reason for that limit.

I have no issues with speed limits, I have issues with illogical limits and issues with those that think speed enforcement should be the key method of improving road safety. There are issues with driving standards generally and road design that if addressed would have a much bigger impact on accident rates

Whether people respect limits or understand the reasons for them or not doesn't actually matter, that's what the cameras are for. The fine/points are the same if you get caught speeding regardless of your attitude to the limit.

[crowfield]

Bring back the man in front with the red flag. That'll stop all the arguments

[Phatboy317]

emmaT2014 said:

Convincing yourself with your BS is very worrying and illustrates a mighty problem.

Yes, it is.

[blueg33]

emmaT2014 said:

No you are wrong again.

An increase in speed of traffic above the posted limit causes the rate and hence the risk of collisions to increase; the relationship has been established to be a square-law.
The increase in injuries rises at an even faster rate.
While you see no increase in risk in your simple example that is because you are dealing with a single incident in a single change of limit that does not take a traffic system into account. That is why your example is BS, as I claimed above.
While you may have a rather simplistic understanding that causes you to believe what you do, that being you see no impact of speed on collisions, it does raise a serious issue. How can road safety orgaisations make the somewhat less deep thinking appreciate that what they do on the road does have an impact on their safety and that of others?

Convincing yourself with your BS is very worrying and illustrates a mighty problem.

I do hope you drive in an area the is nowhere near me.

Youa re being either deliberately obtuse.

I make the simple example specifically because its the type of example that makes some speed limits look daft. It is fundamental in and law that to be enforced there has to be a general acceptance that the law is correct. My example is a demonstration of the lack of logic that discredits some limits. In the example there is no way that the speed of 60mph in Glos creates any more liklihood of an accident than travelling at 60mph is Oxon, just that the latter is illegal. The example is not BS its an actual thing.

I would be interested toi see the source regarding the sqaure law and increase in accident rates.

I have made no comment regarding injuries not increasing with speed, I can do physics thanks.

At no point have I said that speed does not have an impact on collisions. I can do physics thanks.

What I maintain, is that breaking the speed limit does not in itself increase the risk of an accident, it does increase the severity of any accident, thats obvious.

There has been no research quoted that suggests that speeding is the largest factor in an accident. I can think of drivers who never speed but have had numerous accidents.

I have this horrible suspicion that the focus on speed has lulled many people into thinking tthat they are driving safely merely because they are driving below the posted limit. Driving 20k miles a year this seems to be evident. On A and B roads I usually find that the slowest drivers have the least awareness of wahst going on around them and end up braking for junctions etc harder and later than those driving faster. (Clearly there are some mongs who drive too fast and brake late etc, but speed limits won't sort them out, they need education as much as the slow unobersvant mongs)

You are safe by the way, I rarely go to Hendon, I carry out my 30 plus years of accident free driving elsewhere in the country. (I exclude one accident where the attending police officer agreed that I was not to blame despite being the only car involved. Interestingly that occurred at 50 mph in a 70mph limit)

[Einion Yrth]

blueg33 said:

What I maintain, is that breaking the speed limit does not in itself increase the risk of an accident, it does increase the severity of any accident, thats obvious.

Er, no. Exceeding an arbitrary number on a stick does not and cannot increase either the likelihood of an accident or the severity of the results of any such. Driving too fast for the conditions can and very obviously does. At the very best a speed limit can only give a rough guide to the hazard density in any area; used as such they can be very useful, used as they are I fear they can be counter productive.

[blueg33]

Einion Yrth said:

Er, no. Exceeding an arbitrary number on a stick does not and cannot increase either the likelihood of an accident or the severity of the results of any such. Driving too fast for the conditions can and very obviously does. At the very best a speed limit can only give a rough guide to the hazard density in any area; used as such they can be very useful, used as they are I fear they can be counter productive.

You missed the point. If you are travelling at the speed limit the severity of any collision will be lower than if you are travelling above the speed limit simply because there is more energy to disspate.

Plenty of people here say that exceeding the speed limit does increase the liklihood of an accident. If you read my posts you will see that I am not convinced by that assertion

[Dammit]

Without speed you cannot have an accident, a stationary vehicle can only be crashed into.

As speed increases both the severity of, and the likelihood of, an accident increase - proportionally to the speed as reaction times decrease and KE increases.

As has been said speed is a factor, and only a factor, in an accident - but it's often the most important one.

Blinded by the sun? Doing 50 you might recover before drifting out of your lane, doing 90 and you've had that head on collision before you even knew it was happening.

Most people defending their "right to speed" are ignoring the actual realities of the situation.

[Einion Yrth]

blueg33 said:

Einion Yrth said:

Er, no. Exceeding an arbitrary number on a stick does not and cannot increase either the likelihood of an accident or the severity of the results of any such. Driving too fast for the conditions can and very obviously does. At the very best a speed limit can only give a rough guide to the hazard density in any area; used as such they can be very useful, used as they are I fear they can be counter productive.

You missed the point. If you are travelling at the speed limit the severity of any collision will be lower than if you are travelling above the speed limit simply because there is more energy to disspate.

Plenty of people here say that exceeding the speed limit does increase the liklihood of an accident. If you read my posts you will see that I am not convinced by that assertion

I didn't miss the point at all. It is a truism that if you are moving more slowly at the time of any collision there will be less energy to dissipate, the posted limit is however utterly irrelevant to that point, there would be less energy still to dissipate if you were travelling 10 or 15 mph below the limit, the point is that it is necessary to travel at a speed which is safe for the current road conditions. Most accidents AFAIK occur at below the posted limit. IMHO the only sane usage of speed limits is as a guide for the sane and as a simpler route to prosecution of the plainly reckless than DWDCA or DD. I don't believe that the majority of us are reckless.

[blueg33]

Dammit said:

Without speed you cannot have an accident, a stationary vehicle can only be crashed into.

As speed increases both the severity of, and the likelihood of, an accident increase - proportionally to the speed as reaction times decrease and KE increases.

As has been said speed is a factor, and only a factor, in an accident - but it's often the most important one.

Blinded by the sun? Doing 50 you might recover before drifting out of your lane, doing 90 and you've had that head on collision before you even knew it was happening.

Most people defending their "right to speed" are ignoring the actual realities of the situation.

Exactly, but LA's are making the decision on speed limits and they are not consistent with those decisions, this then breaks the trust between the driver and the LA in terms of whether the speed limit is appropriate.

We all have to accept that there is risk in being a raod user, the problem is that diferent people tolerate different levels of risk. If the limit is set sensibly and at a level that the majority adhere to then that's fine. If you want no risk from being a raod user then stay at home in bed.

[Mill Wheel]

singlecoil said:

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.

That was not how the court saw it - the driver was found guilty of CAUSING death by careless driving.
Indeed, the driver had committed himself to crossing the path of the biker BEFORE he reached the lane he was turning into...

..despite the bikers speed of 100 mph.

Mirror said:

The motorist admitted causing death by careless driving and got a 12 months community sentence in April and an 18 month driving ban.

He was also ordered to pay £200 costs with a £60 surcharge and do 130 hours unpaid work.

Ch Insp Spinks added: "We know from the footage that David was travelling up to 100mph. Regardless of the speed of the bike, the car manoeuvre should not have been attempted."