Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents

[OTBC]

From the Greek philos. Lover of. Prone to disputing the tangible safety benefits of lower speeds by making batst claims about suicides counting towards RTC fatalities. Breathtaking dishonesty. Wilfull self delusion. Paranoid fantasy. Sad, really. A bit pathetic.

[singlecoil]

blueg33 said:

I have an example of 1. My FiL never speeds and he says he is safe because of that. In the year before I made him give up driving he had 4 accidents and drove the wrong way around a roundabout.

Well, the old "speed limits encourage people to think they are safe as long as they stay within them" strawman argument just got a family anecdote to support it.

[Dammit]

heebeegeetee said:

I'll repeat what I've said before: The UK faces many problems but road safety isn't one of them. Its one of the few things we do well. If you (or others) have a genuine desire to save lives and help people then your time would be spent far more productively elsewhere.

This is an interesting point of view - what's your thinking behind ~1,850 deaths/15 billion cost being no problem?

France had 3250 deaths in 2013, which is significantly more than we did (for roughly the same size of population, so that supports your assertion in some regards).

[blueg33]

singlecoil said:

blueg33 said:

I have an example of 1. My FiL never speeds and he says he is safe because of that. In the year before I made him give up driving he had 4 accidents and drove the wrong way around a roundabout.

Well, the old "speed limits encourage people to think they are safe as long as they stay within them" strawman argument just got a family anecdote to support it.

You keep using the term Strawman, but actually seem unable to understand observed behaviour in addition to anecdotal evidence.

Basically what I am saying is that most limits are ok, and some are misapplied, plus complacency is an issue.

If we follow the "Speed Kills" mantra that you advocate we just end up with downward movements on speed limits until we are all stationary and frankly that's fking idiotic.

[singlecoil]

blueg33 said:

singlecoil said:

blueg33 said:

I have an example of 1. My FiL never speeds and he says he is safe because of that. In the year before I made him give up driving he had 4 accidents and drove the wrong way around a roundabout.

Well, the old "speed limits encourage people to think they are safe as long as they stay within them" strawman argument just got a family anecdote to support it.

You keep using the term Strawman, but actually seem unable to understand observed behaviour in addition to anecdotal evidence.

Basically what I am saying is that most limits are ok, and some are misapplied, plus complacency is an issue.

If we follow the "Speed Kills" mantra that you advocate we just end up with downward movements on speed limits until we are all stationary and frankly that's fking idiotic.

I keep using the term strawman because people keep using the strawman argument. No-one apart from your father in law has ever said that keeping below the speed limit means that you are safe.

Now if you feel that your because your FIL has said that, a lot of other people believe it, then I'm glad I am here to be able to tell you that no, they don't.

Oh, and I have NEVER said that speed kills. I have, OTOH, often said that the increased safety that comes from lowered speeds has to be balanced against the need to move people around at efficient speeds. If there is an argument to be had about it, then that surely has got to be about where the balance should be set.

It's worth remembering (and there are some 'speedophiles' here that particularly need to remember this) that we live in a democracy, nobody forces speed limits on us against our will.

[heebeegeetee]

Dammit said:

This is an interesting point of view - what's your thinking behind ~1,850 deaths/15 billion cost being no problem?

France had 3250 deaths in 2013, which is significantly more than we did (for roughly the same size of population, so that supports your assertion in some regards).

As always, you quote the figures out of context. You guys always do that, because it supports your point of view.

Fact is, the figure is as much a product of the population size as much as anything else. The cost is a matter of total conjecture. Out of all that 'cost' people are earning and paying tax. The money doesn't disappear.

All else being equal if our population was a quarter of the size the road deaths figure would be 400 odd. Would we be happy with that?

Our road safety is a staggering success and is possibly just about the only think the uk is good at. Time and money would be better spent elsewhere. Rtas are a minor source of early death compared to a great many other common causes.

Check out obesity - something possibly not on everybody's radar, yet apparently is set to bankrupt the NHS and kills 40,000 - 50,000 per annum each year.

Then check out figures for strokes, stress, heart disease. Then check out cancer, something the UK has a poor record of compared to the rest of Europe.

Some herberts on this thread believe they're well placed to know what its like to suffer from paedophilia (presumably they know what its like both as a child and parent), but if speeding drivers are 'worse' than paedophiles then so are a lot more people in the uk given that some 6,000 children die each year, one of the worst records in Western Europe - we compare with Serbia rather than Germany or France.

"The UK has one of the most advanced health systems in the world, but one of worst child mortality rates in Western Europe."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27260371

If you *genuinely* wanted to save lives and money you would look elsewhere.

[Dammit]

heebeegeetee said:

As always, you quote the figures out of context. You guys always do that, because it supports your point of view.

If you *genuinely* wanted to save lives and money you would look elsewhere.

In what way are those figures out of context? France and the UK have approximately the same size population, and the road deaths figures were for the same year. Also, they support your point!

I'm at a bit of a loss, to be honest - in what way am I "twisting" the figures here?

Anyway - your view is that the road death figure is fine because more people are killed elsewhere?

An equivalent might be to say "400 people a year are killed by Daffodils, but that's fine because 1,000 people are killed by Saucepans."

It might start to make more sense if you framed it in terms of "the cost to reduce the number of deaths by Daffodil is treble that of reducing deaths by Saucepan", is this what you mean?

i.e. that you believe that to reduce the number of road deaths in the UK by half would cost more than half the saving so derived?

Also, "you guys" - who are "we"?

[Dammit]

Also, and this is a wonderful part of your post, obesity is caused by a lack of activity - get people out of their cars (crashing into each other) and that looming "DOOM FOR THE NHS!" story might go away.

Get people walking short journeys rather than driving 2 miles etc.

Edited by Dammit on Tuesday 28th October 07:24

[emmaT2014]

heebeegeetee said:

Dammit said:

This is an interesting point of view - what's your thinking behind ~1,850 deaths/15 billion cost being no problem?

France had 3250 deaths in 2013, which is significantly more than we did (for roughly the same size of population, so that supports your assertion in some regards).

As always, you quote the figures out of context. You guys always do that, because it supports your point of view.

Fact is, the figure is as much a product of the population size as much as anything else. The cost is a matter of total conjecture. Out of all that 'cost' people are earning and paying tax. The money doesn't disappear.

All else being equal if our population was a quarter of the size the road deaths figure would be 400 odd. Would we be happy with that?

Our road safety is a staggering success and is possibly just about the only think the uk is good at. Time and money would be better spent elsewhere. Rtas are a minor source of early death compared to a great many other common causes.

Check out obesity - something possibly not on everybody's radar, yet apparently is set to bankrupt the NHS and kills 40,000 - 50,000 per annum each year.

Then check out figures for strokes, stress, heart disease. Then check out cancer, something the UK has a poor record of compared to the rest of Europe.

Some herberts on this thread believe they're well placed to know what its like to suffer from paedophilia (presumably they know what its like both as a child and parent), but if speeding drivers are 'worse' than paedophiles then so are a lot more people in the uk given that some 6,000 children die each year, one of the worst records in Western Europe - we compare with Serbia rather than Germany or France.

"The UK has one of the most advanced health systems in the world, but one of worst child mortality rates in Western Europe."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27260371

If you *genuinely* wanted to save lives and money you would look elsewhere.

The reason why it is a success and is still improving is because of the way it is practiced. If that was changed by diverting the resource elsewhere then it wouldn't be a success.

Perhaps the practices evolved in road safety that have and are delivering that success should be extended into areas that you have mentioned so they too can be improved. That would be better then switching one off and the other on.

[OTBC]

The biggest con the speedophile lobby ever pulled was to bully and intimidate vulnerable road users off the roads, then cite the correspondingly low casualty stats as "proof" that our roads are relatively safe. It's staggeringly dishonest. A child in the UK is three times more likely to be killed on the roads than in Italy, twice as likely as in France, walking and cycling rates have plummeted because aggressive, speeding drivers scare off those with most to lose. The advances in vehicle safety are almost exclusively aimed at vehicle occupants, the risk is externalised. Do you think speeding would be so prevalent if steering wheels had a spike aimed at the driver installed? Drivers are cosseted, protected and swaddled in air bags, seatbelts, crumple zones, warmed seats, quiet and luxurious interiors. The risk is transferred to those with no such protection, and consequently we have one of the worst child casualty rates on the road in Europe.

http://www.trafficaccidentadvice.co.uk/common-myth...

[emmaT2014]

singlecoil said:

blueg33 said:

I have an example of 1. My FiL never speeds and he says he is safe because of that. In the year before I made him give up driving he had 4 accidents and drove the wrong way around a roundabout.

Well, the old "speed limits encourage people to think they are safe as long as they stay within them" strawman argument just got a family anecdote to support it.

I think blueg33 is simply making thinlgs up to suit. The "staying safe because I am driving within the limit" claim is yet to deliver up pa human example; I don't think for one moment that the FiL is an example of that; this is a fantasy on the part of buleg33.

[bodhi]

OTBC said:

The biggest con the speedophile lobby ever pulled was to bully and intimidate vulnerable road users off the roads, then cite the correspondingly low casualty stats as "proof" that our roads are relatively safe. It's staggeringly dishonest. A child in the UK is three times more likely to be killed on the roads than in Italy, twice as likely as in France, walking and cycling rates have plummeted because aggressive, speeding drivers scare off those with most to lose. The advances in vehicle safety are almost exclusively aimed at vehicle occupants, the risk is externalised. Do you think speeding would be so prevalent if steering wheels had a spike aimed at the driver installed? Drivers are cosseted, protected and swaddled in air bags, seatbelts, crumple zones, warmed seats, quiet and luxurious interiors. The risk is transferred to those with no such protection, and consequently we have one of the worst child casualty rates on the road in Europe.

http://www.trafficaccidentadvice.co.uk/common-myth...

Is the high child casualty rate due to "speedophiles" (lol, are you Chris Morris in disguise perchance), or is it due to the fact we don't teach the basics like the Green Cross Code any more? Judging by the difference in attitudes by pedestrians I've seen since I've been on the road (and the general slowing down of traffic in urban areas), I'm willing to bet it's the latter.

[OTBC]

What's more important, allocating blame post fatal RTC or preventing the fatality in the first place? Children make mistakes. The penalty for a child making a mistake should not be death. The forty per cent reduction in collisions and injuries in twenty mph zones shows that you can have lower speeds and the economy doesn't collapse, the world carries on pretty much the same as before, except children don't lose their lives. What's the downside? You can spend your time arguing about liability or you can stop children getting hurt and killed. It depends, I suppose, on what you think is a more productive way to spend your time.

[OTBC]

As an aside, what's your evidence that children aren't taught road safety any more? That sounds like more bks to me.

[bodhi]

OTBC said:

What's more important, allocating blame post fatal RTC or preventing the fatality in the first place? Children make mistakes. The penalty for a child making a mistake should not be death. The forty per cent reduction in collisions and injuries in twenty mph zones shows that you can have lower speeds and the economy doesn't collapse, the world carries on pretty much the same as before, except children don't lose their lives. What's the downside? You can spend your time arguing about liability or you can stop children getting hurt and killed. It depends, I suppose, on what you think is a more productive way to spend your time.

Am yet to see any recent evidence these 20mph zones are actually doing any good, or that anyone really sticks to 20 through them anyway. There's a couple near me in Stafford, pretty much universally ignored. Or the ones in Edinburgh that they've only recently even started enforcing.

I mean if the very people who are behind these things, can't really be bothered to enforce them for a while, does that not tell you something about their validity?

[OTBC]

I take it you're simply going to ignore the question about children not being taught road safety? It's also a bit rude to jump into a thread without reading it, apologies for repost;


http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b4469



Results The introduction of 20 mph zones was associated with a 41.9% (95% confidence interval 36.0% to 47.8%) reduction in road casualties, after adjustment for underlying time trends. The percentage reduction was greatest in younger children and greater for the category of killed or seriously injured casualties than for minor injuries. There was no evidence of casualty migration to areas adjacent to 20 mph zones, where casualties also fell slightly by an average of 8.0% (4.4% to 11.5%).

[heebeegeetee]

Dammit said:

In what way are those figures out of context?

Because you never quote the population figures. You guys always quote the figure in isolation, simply to exaggerate the problem.

The casualty figure is as much a function of the population size as anything else. The figure in isolation is all but meaningless, what we need to do is look at the accident rate.

How many road users do we have in the uk? I'm going to go for a figure of 40 million walk through their front doors each day and use the roads. Then have a think of distances travelled - I think it's going to equate to at least tens of millions, probably hundreds of millions of miles travelled collectively in the uk every single *day*.

And of those countless millions just 5 people die each day in rtas. Out of 1360 people who die each day.

That figure of each day will include high risk groups such as young drivers, bikers, high-level users etc. If you wish to take those out of the equation then for for 'normal' road users the roads are incredibly safe.

Obviously a figure of killed and seriously injured should be taken into account, but I don't know what the overall figures of killed, seriously injured and taken ill overall are. What I do know is the rta casualty figure may be less than 1% of the overall 'casualty' rate, despite three-quarters of the population using the roads each day.

40 million people use the roads every day and every day more than 99% return home safely. I don't see that as a problem.

On the other hand, I heard this morning that in the uk 1 in 4 will have a mental health issue each year, costing the economy £105 billion, and on resolving this issue we spend "effectively nothing".

I say again, if you are genuinely interested in saving lives and money you'd look elsewhere than road safety, 'cos that one is effectively sorted.

[bodhi]

OTBC said:

I take it you're simply going to ignore the question about children not being taught road safety? It's also a bit rude to jump into a thread without reading it, apologies for repost;


http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b4469



Results The introduction of 20 mph zones was associated with a 41.9% (95% confidence interval 36.0% to 47.8%) reduction in road casualties, after adjustment for underlying time trends. The percentage reduction was greatest in younger children and greater for the category of killed or seriously injured casualties than for minor injuries. There was no evidence of casualty migration to areas adjacent to 20 mph zones, where casualties also fell slightly by an average of 8.0% (4.4% to 11.5%).

Hardly jumping into a thread when I've posted previously ridiculing your comparison of speeding with paedohpilia. You're also one to talk about being rude.

And as mentioned the first time you posted this, any data more recent than 2006?

[heebeegeetee]

OTBC said:

The biggest con the speedophile lobby ever pulled was to bully and intimidate vulnerable road users off the roads, then cite the correspondingly low casualty stats as "proof" that our roads are relatively safe. It's staggeringly dishonest. A child in the UK is three times more likely to be killed on the roads than in Italy, twice as likely as in France, walking and cycling rates have plummeted because aggressive, speeding drivers scare off those with most to lose. The advances in vehicle safety are almost exclusively aimed at vehicle occupants, the risk is externalised. Do you think speeding would be so prevalent if steering wheels had a spike aimed at the driver installed? Drivers are cosseted, protected and swaddled in air bags, seatbelts, crumple zones, warmed seats, quiet and luxurious interiors. The risk is transferred to those with no such protection, and consequently we have one of the worst child casualty rates on the road in Europe.

http://www.trafficaccidentadvice.co.uk/common-myth...

Stroll on, post and source equally fallacious.

The child mortality figure is high across the bard. Here' a piece on the subject that doesn't even mention road safety: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27260371

And speaking as someone who won't cycle in the uk, the idea that speeding drivers puts me off is a total lie - traffic in the uk crawls along, it's very difficult to go anywhere quickly in daylight hours without going somewhere remote.

The reason people won't cycle or walk is because we provide as little facilities to do so as is possible in a modern society. Instead our govts prefer to cram the roads with cars so they can tax the st out of them.

Provide us with similar facilities to our close european neighbours and watch health improve and obesity decline. (Obesity is said to cost 40-50,000 deaths pa in the uk).

[OTBC]

bodhi said:

Hardly jumping into a thread when I've posted previously ridiculing your comparison of speeding with paedohpilia. You're also one to talk about being rude.

And as mentioned the first time you posted this, any data more recent than 2006?

First you claimed you hadn't seen evidence that lower limits save lives, now you say the evidence is too old. In what way does that make the research invalid or flawed, do you think?

Do you dispute the fact that speeding drivers kill more children than paedophiles do, by a large magnitude?