Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents
Discussion
Dammit said:
We could try a thought experiment that abstracts things from the situation a little ...
You might have a point if you were faced with some suicidal driver who wilfully waited until you were, say, 20 feet away before they pulled out, regardless of what speed you were doing.Or if you went around a blind bend and encountered a cow standing in the middle of the road, say 20 feet ahead.
But those are the exceptions, not the rule.
Besides, in the above two cases you would be in trouble even if you were only doing 20mph. 0.7 seconds would be barely enough time to get your foot onto the brake pedal.
On the other hand, if you had 200 feet to play with, you would be a full 7 seconds away. And 200 feet isn't a long way - it's roughly the distance between two streetlights, and a distance from which most people can easily read a numberplate.
Of course, it would be idiotic to be doing 80mph 20, or even 200 feet from a junction, but that's also the exception rather than the rule.
johnao said:
There's no need to be paranoid, I'm not picking an argument. I'm just stating what to me seems obvious. Every driver improvement course in the country, whether it be the IAM, RoSPA or any other Roadcraft based course will bang on about being "able to stop in..."
The trouble is that most drivers cannot be trusted to drive at a speed to enable them to stop in the distance they can reasonably expect to be clear.So unfortunately we have to set speed limits to help them pose less of a danger.
That means the few of us that are capable of safely exceeding the posted limit have to accept that infringement on our ability to do so for the greater good.
And that's how it will stay until we can work out a way of making the majority of drivers less incompetent.
Dammit said:
A new challenger appears! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
This can join the Strawman fallacy, might keep him company.
I haven't constructed a strawman argumnent. I have already provided information to suggest that that speed limits are being reduced with little to no "road safety" evidence or justification (the quote from my local councilor).This can join the Strawman fallacy, might keep him company.
We have also see that even after speed limits have been reduced to what many people consider an acceptable level (e.g. 20mph past schools), and where further reduction would have little additional benefit - there are still calls to reduce them even further (like the link I posted a page or so back calling for 10mph limits past schools).
If the "lower speeds = less risk" argument is unused unqualified and unbounded like it often is - there is no point at which we reach a speed that is considered acceptable - and there will always be calls to lower them further. This isn't some theoretical argument that I and others have formulated to counter reductions in speed limits - these are demonstrable facts.
Instead of attacking me with wikipedia links - why not debate and discuss the points I have raised. Do you consider it right and proper to qualify an argument - fundamentally that's all i'm suggesting.
Edited by Moonhawk on Friday 24th October 15:24
I'm not attacking you, I'm pointing out that those who respond to any discussion on road safety in which speeding is mentioned, who then respond with "why not just have a man with a red flag!!!!111!!1!" are using a cheap rhetorical device known as "reducing to the absurd", and that it is not in of itself anything other than a distraction.
Harry Enfield based an entire character around this fallacy - that of the "is that what you want? Because that's what'll happen" character who took something simple and sensible and took it to a ridiculous extreme in order to "disprove" the original, sensible statement.
Irocfan et al can't actually articulate an argument, so plump for "reducing to the absurd", then sit back and claim that they've landed a telling blow.
Which makes a change from Phatboy, who is at least trying to put together an argument to support his position (which he won't state, but appears to be "I want to drive as fast as I can, everywhere") he's just being let down by a lack of basic physics, rather than a lack of imagination.
Harry Enfield based an entire character around this fallacy - that of the "is that what you want? Because that's what'll happen" character who took something simple and sensible and took it to a ridiculous extreme in order to "disprove" the original, sensible statement.
Irocfan et al can't actually articulate an argument, so plump for "reducing to the absurd", then sit back and claim that they've landed a telling blow.
Which makes a change from Phatboy, who is at least trying to put together an argument to support his position (which he won't state, but appears to be "I want to drive as fast as I can, everywhere") he's just being let down by a lack of basic physics, rather than a lack of imagination.
blueg33 said:
CoffeeTreat said:
I actually like his logic. The best way to not have the accident you would have had today is to leave a few mins later. We've just solved road safety and I can't spot a flaw in the argument.
Or you could leave earlier and have someone elses crash............Besides, if EVERYBODY left 1 min later presumably things would stay the same
Dammit said:
I'm not attacking you, I'm pointing out that those who respond to any discussion on road safety in which speeding is mentioned, who then respond with "why not just have a man with a red flag!!!!111!!1!" are using a cheap rhetorical device known as "reducing to the absurd", and that it is not in of itself anything other than a distraction.
Such comments are clearly facetious - surely you can see that. Nobody is seriously suggesting we will go back to the days of a man walking in front of every road vehicle with a red flag.However they do highlight the underlying point which is, if you accept unbounded or unqualified arguments in order to set policy - the outcome can ultimately be absurd (e.g. 10mph speed limits in towns). This kind of things doesn't just affect drivers or speeding - but has the potential to affect all aspects of law and policy setting.
We should always challenge those who try and use unbounded or unqualified arguments to set laws or change policy.
Moonhawk said:
Dammit said:
I'm not attacking you, I'm pointing out that those who respond to any discussion on road safety in which speeding is mentioned, who then respond with "why not just have a man with a red flag!!!!111!!1!" are using a cheap rhetorical device known as "reducing to the absurd", and that it is not in of itself anything other than a distraction.
Such comments are clearly facetious - surely you can see that. Nobody is seriously suggesting we will go back to the days of a man walking in front of every road vehicle with a red flag.However they do highlight the underlying point which is, if you accept unbounded or unqualified arguments in order to set policy - the outcome can ultimately be absurd (e.g. 10mph speed limits in towns). This kind of things doesn't just affect drivers or speeding - but has the potential to affect all aspects of law and policy setting.
We should always challenge those who try and use unbounded or unqualified arguments to set laws or change policy.
singlecoil said:
I can't see the value of including facetious remarks or cartoons in a discussion like this, but leaving that aside for the moment, it may well be that some people would like to see 10mph limits etc, but no-one here has asked for such a thing, or hinted at it. So I really can't see the point of arguing here against speed limits on the basis that they could be reduced to ridiculous levels because no-one here is asking for that. To do so is getting back into straw man territory.
Nobody is arguing against speed limits as far as I can tell. I'm sure everyone on this board will agree that speed limits do serve a valuable purpose and should policed.Where the arguments seem to arise is around questions like whether speed limits are appropriate in all cases, are they being set appropriately using actual evidence, is the apparent wholesale lowering of speed limits under the guise of 'road safety' really justified and could a different approach have a more pronounced effect on road safety (e.g. greater education for pedestrians, making road markings clearer, improving visibility at junctions etc)
Edited by Moonhawk on Friday 24th October 17:16
Dammit said:
Which makes a change from Phatboy, who is at least trying to put together an argument to support his position (which he won't state, but appears to be "I want to drive as fast as I can, everywhere") he's just being let down by a lack of basic physics, rather than a lack of imagination.
I think the misunderstanding is on your part.You appear to be confusing "time available to react", which is the natural interpretation of "time to react", with "time required to react", which is a different matter.
The latter does have a correlation with speed, although it's smaller than many imagine (in the order of a quarter of a second for every 10mph), and the former is in the lap of the gods - as I've been trying to explain.
The question which should be asked is, "is there sufficient time for me to react?" If someone runs out from behind a parked van one car-length ahead, you have insufficient time to get onto the brake, even if you are only doing 20.
Giving people the idea that they have more time to react if they drive slower is dangerous, as well as wrong. They might need a bit less time to react, but they might not have it.
In busy areas, where things can happen very quickly, you want to be even more alert - not lulled into some false sense of safety just because you think that you have loads of time to react.
Phatboy317 said:
If someone runs out from behind a parked van one car-length ahead, you have insufficient time to get onto the brake, even if you are only doing 20.
In which case - the sensible option would be to try and minimise the number of people running out from behind parked cars.This is what gets me about the whole "speed limits" argument - it's very one sided and puts the onus firmly on the driver. In fact - both drivers and pedestrians have a responsibility to use the roads in an appropriate manner - yet pedestrian education seems to be severely lacking (it was certainly a lot more prevalent when I was growing up back in the 70s and 80s). How many non driving pedestrians even know they are subject to rules in the highway code - that would be an interesting survey to conduct.
Whilst lowering the speed limit may mitigate some of the damage caused should an accident occur - surely the aim should be to try and avoid the accident in the first place. Prevention is better than cure.
Phatboy317 said:
I think the misunderstanding is on your part.
You appear to be confusing "time available to react", which is the natural interpretation of "time to react", with "time required to react", which is a different matter.
The latter does have a correlation with speed, although it's smaller than many imagine (in the order of a quarter of a second for every 10mph), and the former is in the lap of the gods - as I've been trying to explain.
The question which should be asked is, "is there sufficient time for me to react?" If someone runs out from behind a parked van one car-length ahead, you have insufficient time to get onto the brake, even if you are only doing 20.
Giving people the idea that they have more time to react if they drive slower is dangerous, as well as wrong. They might need a bit less time to react, but they might not have it.
In busy areas, where things can happen very quickly, you want to be even more alert - not lulled into some false sense of safety just because you think that you have loads of time to react.
Ok, lets take your new idea, and run it through the "which ball is easier to catch" test.You appear to be confusing "time available to react", which is the natural interpretation of "time to react", with "time required to react", which is a different matter.
The latter does have a correlation with speed, although it's smaller than many imagine (in the order of a quarter of a second for every 10mph), and the former is in the lap of the gods - as I've been trying to explain.
The question which should be asked is, "is there sufficient time for me to react?" If someone runs out from behind a parked van one car-length ahead, you have insufficient time to get onto the brake, even if you are only doing 20.
Giving people the idea that they have more time to react if they drive slower is dangerous, as well as wrong. They might need a bit less time to react, but they might not have it.
In busy areas, where things can happen very quickly, you want to be even more alert - not lulled into some false sense of safety just because you think that you have loads of time to react.
I agree with you, to an extent - there is reaction time, plus action time, which both go to make up the "time required to react", although I think that there will be overlap in a dynamic situation.
Anyway- you take your new understanding, and tell me if it's ball A, ball B which is easier to catch, or if they are both the same.
CoffeeTreat said:
blueg33 said:
CoffeeTreat said:
I actually like his logic. The best way to not have the accident you would have had today is to leave a few mins later. We've just solved road safety and I can't spot a flaw in the argument.
Or you could leave earlier and have someone elses crash............Besides, if EVERYBODY left 1 min later presumably things would stay the same
You could have a daily lottery that gives peopel a departure time, that way they would never crash int the person they were going to crash into. If they crash into someone else, that doesnt count because its not the crash they would have had
Dammit said:
Ok, lets take your new idea, and run it through the "which ball is easier to catch" test.
I agree with you, to an extent - there is reaction time, plus action time, which both go to make up the "time required to react", although I think that there will be overlap in a dynamic situation.
Anyway- you take your new understanding, and tell me if it's ball A, ball B which is easier to catch, or if they are both the same.
Neither, by the time you see the ball coming it has already hit you in the head.I agree with you, to an extent - there is reaction time, plus action time, which both go to make up the "time required to react", although I think that there will be overlap in a dynamic situation.
Anyway- you take your new understanding, and tell me if it's ball A, ball B which is easier to catch, or if they are both the same.
Dammit said:
Ok, lets take your new idea, and run it through the "which ball is easier to catch" test.
If you're trying to catch a ball then the question is whether or not you have enough time. If the ball is thrown from 200 ft then you probably do, but if it's from 10 ft then you'll probably find it hard to catch even a slow ball. And you don't know the distance before you see the ball.Dammit said:
No, stop changing the inputs. That's where you keep going wrong.
If everything ELSE remains constant, but the speed varies, what implication does that have for the time to react+time to act in a given situation?
Once we've established this, we can apply it to a driving situation.
What about the actual "reaction" itself ??If everything ELSE remains constant, but the speed varies, what implication does that have for the time to react+time to act in a given situation?
Once we've established this, we can apply it to a driving situation.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff