Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents
Discussion
Dammit said:
I don't agree, I think that a system that accepts a tithe of almost 2,000 deaths a year has something fundamentally wrong with it, but there you go.
And nearly double that number die in falls every year. So should we be banning staircases and ladders?And what about the comparatively huge number of people dying in hospitals from preventable causes? What are we doing about them?
But these are not about your favourite whipping boy, are they?
Phatboy317 said:
Dammit said:
I don't agree, I think that a system that accepts a tithe of almost 2,000 deaths a year has something fundamentally wrong with it, but there you go.
And nearly double that number die in falls every year. So should we be banning staircases and ladders?And what about the comparatively huge number of people dying in hospitals from preventable causes? What are we doing about them?
But these are not about your favourite whipping boy, are they?
We are at liberty to complain to those departments & apply pressure to our governments where we consider their performance unacceptable.
vonhosen said:
Each has there own risk/benefit analysis & their own departments responsible for implementing them to the satisfaction of the electorate.
We are at liberty to complain to those departments & apply pressure to our governments where we consider their performance unacceptable.
Yes, it has its place, but not as part of this particular topic.We are at liberty to complain to those departments & apply pressure to our governments where we consider their performance unacceptable.
Phatboy317 said:
And nearly double that number die in falls every year. So should we be banning staircases and ladders?
And what about the comparatively huge number of people dying in hospitals from preventable causes? What are we doing about them?
But these are not about your favourite whipping boy, are they?
We're on a car forum, not a ladder forum - therefore it follows that cars are the main subject of discussion.And what about the comparatively huge number of people dying in hospitals from preventable causes? What are we doing about them?
But these are not about your favourite whipping boy, are they?
So- stop trying to change the subject.
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
Each has there own risk/benefit analysis & their own departments responsible for implementing them to the satisfaction of the electorate.
We are at liberty to complain to those departments & apply pressure to our governments where we consider their performance unacceptable.
Yes, it has its place, but not as part of this particular topic.We are at liberty to complain to those departments & apply pressure to our governments where we consider their performance unacceptable.
Dammit said:
We're on a car forum, not a ladder forum - therefore it follows that cars are the main subject of discussion.
So- stop trying to change the subject.
It was you who brought up the subject of the number of deaths which society is prepared to tolerate, not me.So- stop trying to change the subject.
This discussion is about the risk of accidents, so you slipping that in was an attempt on your part to change the subject.
vonhosen said:
Well you brought in the other circumstances that people die in, I'm just saying that the rates of acceptability in one activity don't determine the acceptability of death rates in another. Each has their own acceptability & management system.
It's the whole topic of rates of acceptability - in any area - that has no place in this discussionPhatboy317 said:
Because it's a different subject, that's why.
It seems highly relevant when the topic of discussion is whether or not speed increases the risk of an accident.That it does so is beyond question, so we're into the realm of "what is acceptable" in terms of risk and risk management, or, as Heebeegeetee pointed out, we'd have a blanket limit of 20mph everywhere.
I stick to the speed limit, or lower, depending on the conditions most of the time, but quite happily did 150mph down the autobahn for extended periods when on my way to Italy for a cycling holiday.
My assessment of the risk (which I accept may be poor, in the view of others, who may well be more qualified than I am in this area) inherent in driving at more than double the UK limit was that it was acceptable at that moment, in that car, on that road.
It was legal, and the other traffic (such as there was) knew that it was a de-restricted stretch of autobahn, which is key - a 150mph car was within their frame of reference, although to be honest I never entered into theirs, slowing down before I came near them.
On a UK motorway 150mph is far outside what we expect (85-95 in lane 3, say) so despite the road conditions etc I'd never do it (also: legality) as someone could quite responsibly check the rearview, see me coming, assume I'm travelling at ~85mph and pull out, only to find me in the back seat, along with 1,700kg of car.
K
That it does so is beyond question, so we're into the realm of "what is acceptable" in terms of risk and risk management, or, as Heebeegeetee pointed out, we'd have a blanket limit of 20mph everywhere.
I stick to the speed limit, or lower, depending on the conditions most of the time, but quite happily did 150mph down the autobahn for extended periods when on my way to Italy for a cycling holiday.
My assessment of the risk (which I accept may be poor, in the view of others, who may well be more qualified than I am in this area) inherent in driving at more than double the UK limit was that it was acceptable at that moment, in that car, on that road.
It was legal, and the other traffic (such as there was) knew that it was a de-restricted stretch of autobahn, which is key - a 150mph car was within their frame of reference, although to be honest I never entered into theirs, slowing down before I came near them.
On a UK motorway 150mph is far outside what we expect (85-95 in lane 3, say) so despite the road conditions etc I'd never do it (also: legality) as someone could quite responsibly check the rearview, see me coming, assume I'm travelling at ~85mph and pull out, only to find me in the back seat, along with 1,700kg of car.That is the compromise the current road traffic regulations rely upon to mitigate collisions and injuries explained perfectly.
If you choose to modify the regulations it will undermine the effectiveness of the regulation.
Driving is an occupation that depends on you and all others to make the regulations perform and mitigate collisions.
Having a blast because you think at that time you can stop in the distance yiu can see to be clear does not prevent someone shortening that distance outside of your control.
So excess speed does increase the risk of collisions and that is why..
Dammit said:
Phatboy317 said:
Because it's a different subject, that's why.
It seems highly relevant when the topic of discussion is whether or not speed increases the risk of an accident.That it does so is beyond question, so we're into the realm of "what is acceptable" in terms of risk and risk management, or, as Heebeegeetee pointed out, we'd have a blanket limit of 20mph everywhere.
I stick to the speed limit, or lower, depending on the conditions most of the time, but quite happily did 150mph down the autobahn for extended periods when on my way to Italy for a cycling holiday.
My assessment of the risk (which I accept may be poor, in the view of others, who may well be more qualified than I am in this area) inherent in driving at more than double the UK limit was that it was acceptable at that moment, in that car, on that road.
It was legal, and the other traffic (such as there was) knew that it was a de-restricted stretch of autobahn, which is key - a 150mph car was within their frame of reference, although to be honest I never entered into theirs, slowing down before I came near them.
On a UK motorway 150mph is far outside what we expect (85-95 in lane 3, say) so despite the road conditions etc I'd never do it (also: legality) as someone could quite responsibly check the rearview, see me coming, assume I'm travelling at ~85mph and pull out, only to find me in the back seat, along with 1,700kg of car.
If you choose to modify the regulations it will undermine the effectiveness of the regulation.
Driving is an occupation that depends on you and all others to make the regulations perform and mitigate collisions.
Having a blast because you think at that time you can stop in the distance yiu can see to be clear does not prevent someone shortening that distance outside of your control.
So excess speed does increase the risk of collisions and that is why..
The argument of 150mph on a UK motorway has got little or nothing to do with things like the imposition of city-wide 20mph limits, or fining people for doing 35 on a dual-carriageway with not another soul in sight.
With all these diversionary tactics, and probably wilful misrepresentations, this discussion is going nowhere.
So I have better things to do with my time - like watching paint dry - at least it does eventually dry.
Good thing I signed up for the five-minute argument and not the full half-hour
With all these diversionary tactics, and probably wilful misrepresentations, this discussion is going nowhere.
So I have better things to do with my time - like watching paint dry - at least it does eventually dry.
Good thing I signed up for the five-minute argument and not the full half-hour
Phatboy317 said:
Jon1967x said:
And that's where I can't see the logic. We both already accept the number of accidents increase across a population if the speed increases, we only differ in how long the increase takes, but why doesn't that change the situation for an individual? So who is being effected by the increase?
If you buy two lottery tickets a week instead of one you double your chances of winning.But you will probably sill not win the lottery in your lifetime.
So doubling your chances will have made no practical difference to you, as an individual.
You admit 2 tickets doubles your chance but you then claim the odds are so small a doubling is insignificant. That's not true. Its true to say that 1750 people were killed on roads in the uk in 2012 - thats about 0.0027% of the population. And a 10% increase in that would mean you're 0.00027% more likely to die. Quite small numbers unless you happen to be one of the extra 175 people but in a population of 65M+ there is a law of diminishing returns in whats acceptable v the will of the population. But 0.3% of the population were injured in some way in an accident in 2012. Over a lifetime of say 70 years - at a 0.3% probability each year that means you have a 1 in 5 chance of being injured in an accident during your life. A 10% increase on that figure means 1 in 50 more people will be injured at some point.
Personally - I believe that the figure should be tackled with a broad range of balanced measures including car safety, education, better road layout, bypasses around town centres, and the like, but tinkering with speed limits in selective areas is a tool too. People talk about the old days before speed cameras etc but I remember as a child taking 6 hours to go 200 miles to Devon, a journey that today can take less than 4.
Phatboy317 said:
The argument of 150mph on a UK motorway has got little or nothing to do with things like the imposition of city-wide 20mph limits, or fining people for doing 35 on a dual-carriageway with not another soul in sight.
With all these diversionary tactics, and probably wilful misrepresentations, this discussion is going nowhere.
So I have better things to do with my time - like watching paint dry - at least it does eventually dry.
Good thing I signed up for the five-minute argument and not the full half-hour
Crashed and burntWith all these diversionary tactics, and probably wilful misrepresentations, this discussion is going nowhere.
So I have better things to do with my time - like watching paint dry - at least it does eventually dry.
Good thing I signed up for the five-minute argument and not the full half-hour
Phatboy317 said:
The argument of 150mph on a UK motorway has got little or nothing to do with things like the imposition of city-wide 20mph limits, or fining people for doing 35 on a dual-carriageway with not another soul in sight.
With all these diversionary tactics, and probably wilful misrepresentations, this discussion is going nowhere.
So I have better things to do with my time - like watching paint dry - at least it does eventually dry.
Good thing I signed up for the five-minute argument and not the full half-hour
I think it would be more accurate to say that you can't see how these things are related.With all these diversionary tactics, and probably wilful misrepresentations, this discussion is going nowhere.
So I have better things to do with my time - like watching paint dry - at least it does eventually dry.
Good thing I signed up for the five-minute argument and not the full half-hour
That aside, I think we made some progress with your understanding of some of the basics before you flounced.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff