Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents
Discussion
Dammit said:
Without speed you cannot have an accident, a stationary vehicle can only be crashed into.
Without speed you cannot get to where you're going.And without something to crash into you cannot have an accident.
Dammit said:
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.
You drive according to conditions. And it's questionable that doing even as much as 50 directly into the sun is driving to conditions.Mill Wheel said:
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."
Mill Wheel said:
That was not how the court saw it - the driver was found guilty of CAUSING death by careless driving.
You are confusing what a court decides with physical realities. There would not have been a collision if they weren't both there at the same time. That's what caused the collision, two vehicles entering the same space at the same time.irocfan said:
well for the BRAKE contributors on here here is the logical conclusion to your arguments...
No no no....what if they are going down hill and the brakes fade, the man with the flag gets run over. The solution is to reduce all speed limits to 0 mph, or maybe square wheels to stop vehicles rolling into others.Phatboy317 said:
blueg33 said:
No no no....what if they are going down hill and the brakes fade, the man with the flag gets run over. The solution is to reduce all speed limits to 0 mph, or maybe square wheels to stop vehicles rolling into others.
...but great for going down stairs 
as long as the length of the sides is similar to the tread and riser 
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.
That's a good post.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.
TD
Dammit said:
Ah. You may think that's what you are doing, but you just made three assertions, semi-randomly.
Try taking a specific point (such as the higher the speed, the lower the reaction time available) and rebutting that.
Ok, I'll rephrase:Try taking a specific point (such as the higher the speed, the lower the reaction time available) and rebutting that.
You say that without speed you cannot crash. That may be trivially true, but it's just as true, if not more so - given that speed is necessary for movement - that you cannot crash if there's nothing to crash into - regardless of your speed.
In other words, the danger lies in whatever you can crash into, not your speed.
Of course, excessive speed for the road geometry or slippery surfaces can cause loss of control crashes, but that's not what we're talking about here.
You mitigate your risk of crashing into things you observe by adjusting your speed and position in good time in response to your observations, IOW driving according to conditions.
And that includes slowing right down when there's a risk of been blinded by the sun. Your invocation of the 90mph while being blinded by the sun scenario is both spurious and trifling.
Regarding your reaction time comment: you have as much, or as little, time available to react as circumstances dictate at the time of the incident. Your speed doesn't have any bearing on it.
When drivers encounter situations where things are likely to happen very quickly and leave them little or no time to react, for example driving down a narrow street flanked on both sides by parked cars, they slow right down. It does not follow that slowing down makes the danger go away.
Edited by Phatboy317 on Wednesday 22 October 22:14
Ok, so you're not at home to Mr logic.
There is an issue with denying reality - you can, but reality won't change to suit you.
The faster you travel, the less time you have to react to changing circumstances.
Deny that all you want - it won't change, and you look silly.
(The rest of your post is just scribble btw, try again).
There is an issue with denying reality - you can, but reality won't change to suit you.
The faster you travel, the less time you have to react to changing circumstances.
Deny that all you want - it won't change, and you look silly.
(The rest of your post is just scribble btw, try again).
Edited by Dammit on Wednesday 22 October 22:22
blueg33 said:
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. 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.
Have you used too many words here or are you simply not able to frame a proposition with two alternatives?
blueg33 said:
I make the simple example specifically because its the type of example that makes some speed limits look daft.
Why? The speed limits you describe don’t look daft; a change in speed limits is something that is quite normal and are made for good reasons. Perhaps in passing the locations you are not appreciating what those reasons are.blueg33 said:
It is fundamental in and law that to be enforced there has to be a general acceptance that the law is correct.
Generally the law regarding speed limits is accepted. Generally speed limits are accepted on a local level however there are a few people who think that they know better than the local authorities who have set those limits. Mostly those who criticize the limits do not know all of the reasons why that limit is set. There are a number of daft limits’ I accept that, but before you condemn one you really need to appreciate why they have been made of each occasion. blueg33 said:
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.
Your example is a poor illustration of what you are trying to illustrate, mainly because what you are claiming is wrong. Travelling at unlawful speeds increases the risk of collision above the risk of travelling at speeds that are within a limit. You may, should you bother to look, find plenty of evidence that is true.blueg33 said:
I would be interested toi see the source regarding the sqaure law and increase in accident rates.
I’m sure you would, there are many of them. If you are not aware of them then it is not a surprise that you are making the statements you are and making elementary mistakes.blueg33 said:
I have made no comment regarding injuries not increasing with speed, I can do physics thanks.
I rather think you have learned this over the past day or so. Well done for picking that up.blueg33 said:
At no point have I said that speed does not have an impact on collisions. I can do physics thanks.
Oh yes you have and that has been your main point that I have disagreed with. I rather doubt you can do physics and I know you can’t do logic and reasoning.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.
Look at the research and evidence that you say you would like to see then you will learn, possibly, that you are wrong in that assumption for it is an assumption that you are making.blueg33 said:
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’m not at all sure why you may think there was one; who said there was?blueg33 said:
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.
That is an unproven factor. Another assumption you have made I’m afraid.
blueg33 said:
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)
It would be really good if all drivers were highly skilled and interested in motoring and driving. That is never going to happen. Unfortunately good driving involves driving amongst the poor and uninterested driver. You need to do it patiently and safely.blueg33 said:
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)
Ah! Accident free apart from one.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. blueg33 said:
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
Well that’s a real shame because those who say that are quite correct.blueg33 said:
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.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.
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.
singlecoil said:
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
Not so sure about that. It all depends on the driver, and thankfully we are all different. Personally, I like to make brisk progress. I am comfortable at speeds of between 60 and a higher speed on A roads and some B roads. that's because I enjoy the motoring. My pulse will be slightly quickly, I will be have heightened awareness, and watching ahead.For me, in my current car, this is quick enough. There are other "drivers" out there who will be comfortable at higher speeds. However, I personally think the problems are caused by "drivers" who have to drive, who view every journey as a chore, who have zero enjoyment whilst behind the wheel.I have family members who think they are good drivers because they drive everywhere at 45mph. I have a family member who rides a Yamaha R6, and can get through 4 gears by the time he's reached 20mph !!
Last "accident" I had occurred at about 5mph...never had a "speed" related crash, and never had a point ( yet) I do make mistakes at lower, sleep inducing speeds.
I'd be interested to know what other "drivers" feel...are you more likely to make a mistake driving quickly..or slowly ??
Dammit said:
The faster you travel, the less time you have to react to changing circumstances.
You have as much time as you have, no more, no less.Think about it.
Besides, if you leave things until you reach the point where a fraction of a second can make the difference between life and death, then you have probably not been observing properly.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff