Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents
Discussion
emmaT2014 said:
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.
When will people realise that speed isnt the key issue?
Breadvan72 said:
It is absurd to say that speeding does not cause accidents. It causes some accidents. It does not cause others. Thus it is equally absurd to say that speeding causes all accidents. This isn't a binary thing.
I haven't read all the pages, but I'd agree with BV, with one qualification- perhaps it's not speeding, (as exceeding the nominal number on a pole decided more often these days by WRI members ,rather than a committee of Highway engineers and highly trained Police ), but SPEED ,EXCESSIVE TO THE CONDITIONS PREVAILING AT THE TIME. Something that the Brakies will never get round to acknowledging. Phatboy317 said:
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.
You realise that you are denying that you get faster as your speed increases?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.
Your first sentence doesn't make any sense- you are trying to overlay your view of reality onto the world, and that doesn't work.
I think you are probably a very good example of why we have to have speed limits.
emmaT2014 said:
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.But bring them on - we can discuss them in minute detail.
Phatboy317 said:
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.
And it's also a pointless argument to either say travelling at a faster speed means you wouldn't have been there anyway, as equally driving at a slower speed would be the same; nor is it an argument to say a better more observant driver wouldn't be in that position as that is an argument for safer driving but not one linked to the merits of speed.
Driving is a risk, at any speed. Increased speed = increased risk simply because things out of your control are more likely to cause an accident. The skill of a driver will increase or decrease the risk of driving at speed, or any manoeuvre frankly.
Speed differential is a big risk, and I think a big contributing factor in accidents. I am covering alot of motorway miles right now and regularly 'make progress' close to triple figures. Yes if i get a blow-out or some muppet swerves in front of me with no gap to slow down I accept I'm going to have an accident whereas at 60-70mph I may well not have done. But I accept that risk, and mitigate it by driving with good observation and awareness.
For example - driving with a good closing speed to the car ahead - so many folks seem to brake quite late - to a point that the car in front hitting the brakes would guarantee them in the back. I'd have backed off, reduce closing speed as you get closer, in case he does just sit in the outside lane - many do so you should prepare for it - usually I am covering the brake the whole time but don't use it.
Or up a hill knowing it's about sunrise on a clear day due East, the sun is coming up so it's inevitably going to blind you when crest the hill. I'll have my sunglasses on at that point and give more space to the car in front in anticipation of a freak-out.
Most folks are just driving A-B, don't really take much pride in their driving standards and can be pretty selfish, the way i see it if you're going to drive over the limit you need to be aware many other road users will vilify you, may deliberately impede your progress to make a point, and accept some responsibility if an accident occurs as you should have mitigated the risk through your driving. Except those tw@ts that pull into your lane at 70mph without indicating when you're at 90mph and 20 yards away, they should be lined up and flogged for their appalling attitude. Naked if they put beams on when you pass.
And just to say - I'm certainly not perfect, learning with every drive and adjusting my approach, sometimes I do get a bit frustrated on a drive (usually obvious to me when i start having to hit the brakes in lane 3) and have to adjust my attitude a little - point is, if I lapse my concentration of observation and still try to drive at speed then the risk rises pretty drastically.
Speed differential is a big risk, and I think a big contributing factor in accidents. I am covering alot of motorway miles right now and regularly 'make progress' close to triple figures. Yes if i get a blow-out or some muppet swerves in front of me with no gap to slow down I accept I'm going to have an accident whereas at 60-70mph I may well not have done. But I accept that risk, and mitigate it by driving with good observation and awareness.
For example - driving with a good closing speed to the car ahead - so many folks seem to brake quite late - to a point that the car in front hitting the brakes would guarantee them in the back. I'd have backed off, reduce closing speed as you get closer, in case he does just sit in the outside lane - many do so you should prepare for it - usually I am covering the brake the whole time but don't use it.
Or up a hill knowing it's about sunrise on a clear day due East, the sun is coming up so it's inevitably going to blind you when crest the hill. I'll have my sunglasses on at that point and give more space to the car in front in anticipation of a freak-out.
Most folks are just driving A-B, don't really take much pride in their driving standards and can be pretty selfish, the way i see it if you're going to drive over the limit you need to be aware many other road users will vilify you, may deliberately impede your progress to make a point, and accept some responsibility if an accident occurs as you should have mitigated the risk through your driving. Except those tw@ts that pull into your lane at 70mph without indicating when you're at 90mph and 20 yards away, they should be lined up and flogged for their appalling attitude. Naked if they put beams on when you pass.
And just to say - I'm certainly not perfect, learning with every drive and adjusting my approach, sometimes I do get a bit frustrated on a drive (usually obvious to me when i start having to hit the brakes in lane 3) and have to adjust my attitude a little - point is, if I lapse my concentration of observation and still try to drive at speed then the risk rises pretty drastically.
Dammit said:
You realise that you are denying that you get faster as your speed increases?
Your first sentence doesn't make any sense- you are trying to overlay your view of reality onto the world, and that doesn't work.
I think you are probably a very good example of why we have to have speed limits.
Petty insults don't win arguments.Your first sentence doesn't make any sense- you are trying to overlay your view of reality onto the world, and that doesn't work.
I think you are probably a very good example of why we have to have speed limits.
If you're doing 30 and someone dashes into the road 22 feet ahead of you, you have half a second to react.
If you're doing 60 and someone dashes into the road 22 feet ahead of you, you have quarter of a second to react.
If you're doing 60 and someone dashes into the road 88 feet ahead of you, you have one second to react.
If you're doing 30 and someone dashes into the road 220 feet ahead of you, you have five seconds to react.
If you're doing 20 and someone dashes into the road 5 feet ahead of you, you have milliseconds to react.
That's what you have, and it's determined by myriad circumstances, like the time you started your journey, your average speed, how many times you stopped, the exact moment they dashed into the road, etc etc.
That's what circumstances dictate, and you cannot change them. Even if you could rewind reality and repeat the whole scenario at a different speed, you would then not be at that spot at that time and therefore the whole thing would not have come about.
You have as much time as circumstances dictate - period.
Of course, had you been observant and you noticed someone who may have been about to dash into the road, you would have slowed down from 60 a long time before you reached the point 22 feet from them.
Edited by Phatboy317 on Wednesday 22 October 23:20
Jon1967x said:
You really don't get it do you. You go round a blind bend and find an obstacle in the road causing you to stop. If your are travelling faster you have less time because it's the distance on the road that's fixed. That's not to say you can't stop, you might, but then you might not.
If you don't recognise that there could be an obstacle around a blind bend and so don't slow down accordingly, then your problem is a lack of road sense.It's not speed that causes the problem, but rather a poor choice of speed for conditions.
Phatboy317 said:
Petty insults don't win arguments.
If you're doing 30 and someone dashes into the road 22 feet ahead of you, you have half a second to react.
If you're doing 60 and someone dashes into the road 22 feet ahead of you, you have quarter of a second to react.
If you're doing 60 and someone dashes into the road 88 feet ahead of you, you have one second to react.
If you're doing 30 and someone dashes into the road 220 feet ahead of you, you have five seconds to react.
If you're doing 20 and someone dashes into the road 5 feet ahead of you, you have milliseconds to react.
That's what you have, and it's determined by myriad circumstances, like the time you started your journey, your average speed, how many times you stopped, the exact moment they dashed into the road, etc etc.
That's what circumstances dictate, and you cannot change them. Even if you could rewind reality and repeat the whole scenario at a different speed, you would then not be at that spot at that time and therefore the whole thing would not have come about.
You have as much time as circumstances dictate - period.
Of course, had you been observant and you noticed someone who may have been about to dash into the road, you would have slowed down from 60 a long time before you reached the point 22 feet from them.
I see no petty insult.If you're doing 30 and someone dashes into the road 22 feet ahead of you, you have half a second to react.
If you're doing 60 and someone dashes into the road 22 feet ahead of you, you have quarter of a second to react.
If you're doing 60 and someone dashes into the road 88 feet ahead of you, you have one second to react.
If you're doing 30 and someone dashes into the road 220 feet ahead of you, you have five seconds to react.
If you're doing 20 and someone dashes into the road 5 feet ahead of you, you have milliseconds to react.
That's what you have, and it's determined by myriad circumstances, like the time you started your journey, your average speed, how many times you stopped, the exact moment they dashed into the road, etc etc.
That's what circumstances dictate, and you cannot change them. Even if you could rewind reality and repeat the whole scenario at a different speed, you would then not be at that spot at that time and therefore the whole thing would not have come about.
You have as much time as circumstances dictate - period.
Of course, had you been observant and you noticed someone who may have been about to dash into the road, you would have slowed down from 60 a long time before you reached the point 22 feet from them.
Edited by Phatboy317 on Wednesday 22 October 23:20
How about this to assist you:
| If you're doing 30 and someone dashes into the road 22 feet ahead of you, you have half a second to react. | And you will collide with that person and severely injure them |
| If you're doing 60 and someone dashes into the road 22 feet ahead of you, you have quarter of a second to react. | And you will hit them before you have reacted and will probably cut them in half |
| If you're doing 60 and someone dashes into the road 88 feet ahead of you, you have one second to react. | And you will collide with that person and fatally injure him |
| If you're doing 30 and someone dashes into the road 220 feet ahead of you, you have five seconds to react. | You will most likely stop before colliding; all is well |
| If you're doing 20 and someone dashes into the road 5 feet ahead of you, you have milliseconds to react. | And you will collide with that person and injuries will be likely to be between slight and serious! |
emmaT2014 said:
I see no petty insult.
How about this to assist you:| If you're doing 30 and someone dashes into the road 22 feet ahead of you, you have half a second to react. | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U1pLSWWV4c |
An assumption will not fit every circumstance!
blueg33 said:
Having said that i will be perfectly safe if I travel at 59 mph a couple of inches behind the car in front,
Straw man argument. Nobody has ever said that driving under the speed limit is automatically safe. Nobody. Ever. And yet anti-speed-limit campaigners bang on about it as if by so doing they are winning an argument. They are not.Phatboy317 said:
Jon1967x said:
You really don't get it do you. You go round a blind bend and find an obstacle in the road causing you to stop. If your are travelling faster you have less time because it's the distance on the road that's fixed. That's not to say you can't stop, you might, but then you might not.
If you don't recognise that there could be an obstacle around a blind bend and so don't slow down accordingly, then your problem is a lack of road sense.It's not speed that causes the problem, but rather a poor choice of speed for conditions.
It seems we either agree despite you not wanting to admit it or we're having some big semantic argument about its not what a driver does that causes accidents, it's the drivers error of judgement that's at fault. In your example, misjudging the bend so failing to slow down which meant less time to deal with the problem which is the crux of the whole argument. The drivers error of judgement in a lot of accidents includes driving too quickly for the situation and to me that means speed is a factor
Edited by Jon1967x on Thursday 23 October 06:51
emmaT2014 said:
I see no petty insult.
How about this to assist you:
My point was about time to react - not about crash severity.How about this to assist you:
| If you're doing 30 and someone dashes into the road 22 feet ahead of you, you have half a second to react. | And you will collide with that person and severely injure them |
| If you're doing 60 and someone dashes into the road 22 feet ahead of you, you have quarter of a second to react. | And you will hit them before you have reacted and will probably cut them in half |
| If you're doing 60 and someone dashes into the road 88 feet ahead of you, you have one second to react. | And you will collide with that person and fatally injure him |
| If you're doing 30 and someone dashes into the road 220 feet ahead of you, you have five seconds to react. | You will most likely stop before colliding; all is well |
| If you're doing 20 and someone dashes into the road 5 feet ahead of you, you have milliseconds to react. | And you will collide with that person and injuries will be likely to be between slight and serious! |
I used the 60mph/22 feet as an example to illustrate the point - you wouldn't be doing 60 if it was likely that someone would jump out 22 feet ahead of you, now would you?
Phatboy317 said:
My point was about time to react - not about crash severity.
I used the 60mph/22 feet as an example to illustrate the point - you wouldn't be doing 60 if it was likely that someone would jump out 22 feet ahead of you, now would you?
I've emboldened the yawning hole in that argument. When it comes to hitting people at 60 mph, one shouldn't only be considering 'likely' situations.I used the 60mph/22 feet as an example to illustrate the point - you wouldn't be doing 60 if it was likely that someone would jump out 22 feet ahead of you, now would you?
Exactly- how would you know that someone was going to do that?
You are clutching at straws here, and I suspect you may be doing this to cover up a less than comprehensive understanding of the basic principles involved.
Have a think about what the basics of accelerating and decelerating an object- some basic physics primers will have some useful examples, quite probably involving cars as they are everyday objects.
You can't change the frame of reference to keep reaction times the same for ever higher speeds, or suggest that the drier "just knows" when a deer is about to run across the road- that's mysticism, not reality.
You clearly have total faith in your own driving - but faith is often independent of facts, and that's the situation here I suspect.
You are clutching at straws here, and I suspect you may be doing this to cover up a less than comprehensive understanding of the basic principles involved.
Have a think about what the basics of accelerating and decelerating an object- some basic physics primers will have some useful examples, quite probably involving cars as they are everyday objects.
You can't change the frame of reference to keep reaction times the same for ever higher speeds, or suggest that the drier "just knows" when a deer is about to run across the road- that's mysticism, not reality.
You clearly have total faith in your own driving - but faith is often independent of facts, and that's the situation here I suspect.
Edited by Dammit on Thursday 23 October 06:45
singlecoil said:
irocfan said:
well for the BRAKE contributors on here here is the logical conclusion to your arguments...
The old appeal to ridicule, always an argument winner as far as the 'go faster' brigade are concerned. Trouble is, it doesn't work on anyone else.
kwittery spewed on here. A road which has seen no accidents as an NSL is reduced to a 40 and suddenly you're going to crash and burn because you're doing 45? Please! Yes you're breaking the law but that's itGassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff