Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents
Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
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.
Sorry - I did assume a bit of basic knowledge.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.
Population of France: ~65M
Population of the UK: ~65M
Which is why I compared the death rates for both countries.
Now this is an interesting idea: "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."
Why would we take a group (or groups) out of the figures, that makes no sense - especially as they (if we take your view) contribute the "unsafeness" in greater amount than the "normal" road users (how are we defining normal here?)
Then you (hat tip to Singlecoil) introduce your Strawman - the mental health issue. That's got nothing to do with road safety, or speeding, unless you are suggesting that people who both speed and crash have some form of mental illness.
Your final assertion (that road safety is solved) I feel is interesting, given the 15 billion pounds it costs us to kill ~2,000 people. You've stated that you find this figure to be fine - what would need to change for you to decide that it is not fine? If it went up to say 20 billion, or 3,000 deaths? Or both? Your main concern seems to be financial, rather than that people actually died - is that an accurate appraisal of your views?
Try to restrict your answer to the point in hand, rather than bringing in "but tens of thousands of people died of renal failure! That makes the road deaths a non-issue!", or similar.
OTBC said:
(Here's a funny thing. There ARE links to this claim on the internet. All are to this forum, and all originate from a poster called..Millwheel! Which begs the question, where did Millwheel get this garbage from?)
I know where you get your garbage from, your breath stinks of it!Despite all the facts about this I provided you failed to find it via Google, because you didn't WANT to find it, instead seeking to hurl unjustified insults... just as you hurl the "straw man" accusations at any poster whose opinions don't fit YOUR ideals!
http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/archive/200...
Westmorland Gazette in 2002 said:
Pair hold car back
TWO workmen fought to stop a crushed car from toppling down a bank while fire-fighters rushed to the scene to free an injured couple trapped in the wreckage, reports Jon Taylor.
The elderly couple, believed to be from the Staveley area, had been travelling along the A591 from Windermere towards Kendal when their BMW left the road and collided with a road sign near Gowan Bank Farm.
The car careered along the verge before crossing the carriageway and smashing into a tree and landing on its side.
First on the scene were builders Dave Carrie, 46, and his son Duncan, 20, from Staveley who had been working on a house in Ings when they heard the accident.
"There was a terrible crunching noise and the sound of breaking glass.
We threw our tools down and rushed out," said Dave Carrie.
"There was wreckage scattered along the road for about 300 yards.
The car was on its side on the opposite verge with its wheels pointing into the road.
It was on the edge of a steep banking and was starting to topple over."
Mr Carrie and his son raced to the upturned vehicle, and pushed their shoulder against the car to prevent it falling down the banking.
"We could see an old couple inside; they were covered in blood and very shocked.
"We talked to them to try to keep them calm, but we didn't want them to know we were struggling to keep the car from tumbling down the slope."
Within minutes the volunteer crew from Staveley fire station arrived and were able to fasten a rope around the car and secure it. The fire-fighters used cutting and spreading equipment to release the couple.
A spokesman for Staveley volunteer fire crew praised the quick thinking of Mr Carrie and his son.
"There is a good chance that by stopping the car falling into the ditch they prevented further injuries to the couple," he said.
The driver of the car, a 74-year-old man, was taken by road to the Royal Lancaster Infirmary with suspected spinal injuries.
His condition was described yesterday (Thursday) as "stable".
His 77-year-old female passenger was flown by air ambulance to the same hospital where staff yesterday said that she was "comfortable".
Relatives of the couple requested that police did not release their details.
The crash caused serious traffic congestion for around three hours on Tuesday as vehicles were diverted along the A592 Crook to Windermere road.
This accident was included in the 3 year KSI stats used to justify the placement of speed cameras at Ings, which started in April 2003.TWO workmen fought to stop a crushed car from toppling down a bank while fire-fighters rushed to the scene to free an injured couple trapped in the wreckage, reports Jon Taylor.
The elderly couple, believed to be from the Staveley area, had been travelling along the A591 from Windermere towards Kendal when their BMW left the road and collided with a road sign near Gowan Bank Farm.
The car careered along the verge before crossing the carriageway and smashing into a tree and landing on its side.
First on the scene were builders Dave Carrie, 46, and his son Duncan, 20, from Staveley who had been working on a house in Ings when they heard the accident.
"There was a terrible crunching noise and the sound of breaking glass.
We threw our tools down and rushed out," said Dave Carrie.
"There was wreckage scattered along the road for about 300 yards.
The car was on its side on the opposite verge with its wheels pointing into the road.
It was on the edge of a steep banking and was starting to topple over."
Mr Carrie and his son raced to the upturned vehicle, and pushed their shoulder against the car to prevent it falling down the banking.
"We could see an old couple inside; they were covered in blood and very shocked.
"We talked to them to try to keep them calm, but we didn't want them to know we were struggling to keep the car from tumbling down the slope."
Within minutes the volunteer crew from Staveley fire station arrived and were able to fasten a rope around the car and secure it. The fire-fighters used cutting and spreading equipment to release the couple.
A spokesman for Staveley volunteer fire crew praised the quick thinking of Mr Carrie and his son.
"There is a good chance that by stopping the car falling into the ditch they prevented further injuries to the couple," he said.
The driver of the car, a 74-year-old man, was taken by road to the Royal Lancaster Infirmary with suspected spinal injuries.
His condition was described yesterday (Thursday) as "stable".
His 77-year-old female passenger was flown by air ambulance to the same hospital where staff yesterday said that she was "comfortable".
Relatives of the couple requested that police did not release their details.
The crash caused serious traffic congestion for around three hours on Tuesday as vehicles were diverted along the A592 Crook to Windermere road.
Dammit said:
Sorry - I did assume a bit of basic knowledge.
1. Population of France: ~65M
Population of the UK: ~65M
Which is why I compared the death rates for both countries.
2. Now this is an interesting idea: "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."
Why would we take a group (or groups) out of the figures, that makes no sense - especially as they (if we take your view) contribute the "unsafeness" in greater amount than the "normal" road users (how are we defining normal here?)
3. Then you (hat tip to Singlecoil) introduce your Strawman - the mental health issue. That's got nothing to do with road safety, or speeding, unless you are suggesting that people who both speed and crash have some form of mental illness.
4. Your final assertion (that road safety is solved) I feel is interesting, given the 15 billion pounds it costs us to kill ~2,000 people. You've stated that you find this figure to be fine - what would need to change for you to decide that it is not fine? If it went up to say 20 billion, or 3,000 deaths? Or both? Your main concern seems to be financial, rather than that people actually died - is that an accurate appraisal of your views?
5. Try to restrict your answer to the point in hand, rather than bringing in "but tens of thousands of people died of renal failure! That makes the road deaths a non-issue!", or similar.
1. Sorry - you've responded to my post by mentioning France. What's France got to do with it?1. Population of France: ~65M
Population of the UK: ~65M
Which is why I compared the death rates for both countries.
2. Now this is an interesting idea: "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."
Why would we take a group (or groups) out of the figures, that makes no sense - especially as they (if we take your view) contribute the "unsafeness" in greater amount than the "normal" road users (how are we defining normal here?)
3. Then you (hat tip to Singlecoil) introduce your Strawman - the mental health issue. That's got nothing to do with road safety, or speeding, unless you are suggesting that people who both speed and crash have some form of mental illness.
4. Your final assertion (that road safety is solved) I feel is interesting, given the 15 billion pounds it costs us to kill ~2,000 people. You've stated that you find this figure to be fine - what would need to change for you to decide that it is not fine? If it went up to say 20 billion, or 3,000 deaths? Or both? Your main concern seems to be financial, rather than that people actually died - is that an accurate appraisal of your views?
5. Try to restrict your answer to the point in hand, rather than bringing in "but tens of thousands of people died of renal failure! That makes the road deaths a non-issue!", or similar.
2. Of course it makes sense. You are quoting a figure to illustrate how dangerous the roads are, but that figure contains high risk groups, such as young drivers who according to 1 source make up 1.5% of the driving population but have 12% of the accidents, and bikers who I dare say produce similar figures, and business drivers and lorry drivers who clock up tens of thousands of miles per year in all weather,in vehicles that are difficult to drive - none of that is relevant to me, a middle aged private motorist.
There is no point in lumping us together saying 'we' do this or 'they' do that - there are too many disparate groups to lump us together. Take out the minority high risk groups and you are left with a figure that more accurately portrays the risk to the average person, and then factor that figure in with the numbers I gave you, and that will give you a more honest and accurate assessment of road safety in the uk rather than a headline figure containing high risk groups quoted out of context (as always).
3. I just mentioned an issue that very much unlike road safety is one that rarely gets mentioned - yet is a significantly worse situation than road safety. You quote a figure of a cost of £15billion, the IAM reckon its about a fifth of that at £3.2 billion http://www.iam.org.uk/media-and-research/media-cen...
yet mental health costs the nation £105 billion according to the piece I heard and the uk spends "effectively nothing" tackling it. This is for an issue that is far more likely to affect us than a road safety issue is.
It simply doesn't make sense to keep being dishonest about road safety whilst doing very little about far more serious issues which are far more likely to affect or harm us.
4. You ask "what would need to change for you to decide that it is not fine?"
Well, the casualty figures would need to rise significantly, but as that has not happened at any point in our history I don't foresee that happening any time soon.
5. It's an open discussion so I'll introduce any point I like thank you very much. Nobody is forcing you to respond to them.
1. I compared road deaths for 2013, for both the UK and France - two countries which are very close to one another so have broadly similar climates, seasons, and critically populations. You accused me of taking figures out of context. Now I suspect you missed that post and were just complaining about me providing a road deaths for 2013 figure? How that can be out of context (its the total number of deaths, that WAS the context) is a question I am sure you'll fail to answer.
2. I can "prove" anything I want if I'm allowed to remove the data that doesn't fit with my hypothesis. It renders that "proof" 100% meaningless though. In this situation I agree that if we remove the high risk groups then it reduces the risk - but that's like saying "the sky is blue", and doesn't get us anywhere.
3. This is a distraction- it has nothing (zero, nada) to do with the point. If you would like to discuss spending on mental health maybe you should start a thread about it? It has no place here.
4. Golly. If you look at 2,000 dead people and think "good, I am fine with this", then maybe we can't take this anywhere.
5. Knock yourself out - but do bear in mind that your debating tactic of bringing in distractions is not, ultimately, productive.
2. I can "prove" anything I want if I'm allowed to remove the data that doesn't fit with my hypothesis. It renders that "proof" 100% meaningless though. In this situation I agree that if we remove the high risk groups then it reduces the risk - but that's like saying "the sky is blue", and doesn't get us anywhere.
3. This is a distraction- it has nothing (zero, nada) to do with the point. If you would like to discuss spending on mental health maybe you should start a thread about it? It has no place here.
4. Golly. If you look at 2,000 dead people and think "good, I am fine with this", then maybe we can't take this anywhere.
5. Knock yourself out - but do bear in mind that your debating tactic of bringing in distractions is not, ultimately, productive.
Dammit said:
5. Knock yourself out - but do bear in mind that your debating tactic of bringing in distractions is not, ultimately, productive.
Mate, you are wasting your time, HBGT derails all the threads he goes on with this crap. I thought your point was a fair one. I guess it takes someone a bit special to manage to derail threads at the rate he manages to.
Dammit said:
1. I compared road deaths for 2013, for both the UK and France - two countries which are very close to one another so have broadly similar climates, seasons, and critically populations. You accused me of taking figures out of context. Now I suspect you missed that post and were just complaining about me providing a road deaths for 2013 figure? How that can be out of context (its the total number of deaths, that WAS the context) is a question I am sure you'll fail to answer.
2. I can "prove" anything I want if I'm allowed to remove the data that doesn't fit with my hypothesis. It renders that "proof" 100% meaningless though. In this situation I agree that if we remove the high risk groups then it reduces the risk - but that's like saying "the sky is blue", and doesn't get us anywhere.
3. This is a distraction- it has nothing (zero, nada) to do with the point. If you would like to discuss spending on mental health maybe you should start a thread about it? It has no place here.
4. Golly. If you look at 2,000 dead people and think "good, I am fine with this", then maybe we can't take this anywhere.
5. Knock yourself out - but do bear in mind that your debating tactic of bringing in distractions is not, ultimately, productive.
1. D'you know what, I've never heard anyone before say that the climates of France and the UK are similar, but there you go.2. I can "prove" anything I want if I'm allowed to remove the data that doesn't fit with my hypothesis. It renders that "proof" 100% meaningless though. In this situation I agree that if we remove the high risk groups then it reduces the risk - but that's like saying "the sky is blue", and doesn't get us anywhere.
3. This is a distraction- it has nothing (zero, nada) to do with the point. If you would like to discuss spending on mental health maybe you should start a thread about it? It has no place here.
4. Golly. If you look at 2,000 dead people and think "good, I am fine with this", then maybe we can't take this anywhere.
5. Knock yourself out - but do bear in mind that your debating tactic of bringing in distractions is not, ultimately, productive.
The context you should be putting the rta casualty figure is, as you know full well, that of the population you are discussing. So for the UK the figure of 2000 is out of a population of 62 million. Or out of a road-using population of 40 million plus 2000 will die. Or out of the 500,000 people who die each year 2000 will be rtas. Or out of the 1360 people who die each year 5 will be rtas. Or out of the few hundred thousand people who die a premature death each year 2000 will be rtas.
In any way you measure, the uk rta statistic is not a high proportion of any contextual figure you want to use. *Thats* why you guys never use the figure in context - you always quotr the figure in isolation with the specific purpose to mislead.
2. Yes, you can and you do right from the start by using your figure out of context. (The Daily Mail will often use the same tactic).
Don't know what you mean about reducing the risk - nobodies risk is reduced, it is what it is. My risk is what it is, I have the risk of an ordinary average road user who isn't young, doesn't ride a bike, doesn't drive long distances (any more) and so on. Again, by lumping me in with these high risk groups you exaggerate the risk I am in - which is another tactic you guys use all the time. (Btw by 'you guys' I mean the road safety lobby and its supporters that sets out to deliberately mislead the actual risk that people are in).
3. It has more of a place than France has. Obviously we will look to other countries to see how we are stacking up in comparison, but that still doesn't give us a picture of what risk we as the population are in from an early death. As the person who posted that link to the Guardian piece on how we die each year showed, the proportion of people who die of an rta sech year is so small that you struggle to find it on the chart.
Again, this morning I heard that a fifth of women are likely to suffer a stroke each year (a fifth!) and is the third leading cause of death for women, yet it's hardly discussed and not a lot is done about it - yet in a country that doesn't have a road safety issue we bang on about that instead and exaggerate the risk all the time. I'll say again, if you genuinely wanted to save peoples lives you'd do far better looking elsewhere.
4. Because you need to know if 2000 is a lot. By your reckoning there are a lot of european countries safer than us because they have a lower figure. But when you take a look at the population figures you immediately see that in fact their accident rate is higher than ours and the risk is greater.
5. It is, because it highlights how you exaggerate the problem.
singlecoil said:
Mate, you are wasting your time, HBGT derails all the threads he goes on with this crap. I thought your point was a fair one. I guess it takes someone a bit special to manage to derail threads at the rate he manages to.
I'm on topic. Dammit quotes his figures out of context (as he knows full well) and I'm trying to get him to admit that, but he's taken to getting into an argument instead of debating the point - which he also knows full well. Anyway, if you could please not derail this thread with all your strawman waffle and playground insults that would be great.
Mill Wheel said:
This accident was included in the 3 year KSI stats used to justify the placement of speed cameras at Ings, which started in April 2003.
I've never used the term straw man, and I didn't dispute the collision happened, my question was can you show that this accident or the drunk you mentioned were used to justify siting a speed camera as you claimed.You can't.
Because you made it up.
Prove me wrong.
heebeegeetee said:
Don't know what you mean about reducing the risk - nobodies risk is reduced, it is what it is. My risk is what it is, I have the risk of an ordinary average road user who isn't young, doesn't ride a bike, .
Riding a bike isn't high risk, where did you get that from? Per mile travelled cycling is safer than walking your perception is skewed.heebeegeetee said:
singlecoil said:
Mate, you are wasting your time, HBGT derails all the threads he goes on with this crap. I thought your point was a fair one. I guess it takes someone a bit special to manage to derail threads at the rate he manages to.
I'm on topic. Dammit quotes his figures out of context (as he knows full well) and I'm trying to get him to admit that, but he's taken to getting into an argument instead of debating the point - which he also knows full well. Anyway, if you could please not derail this thread with all your strawman waffle and playground insults that would be great.
. You know perfectly well you've been caught out trying to derail the thread with irrelevancies, but, just like your 'mate', you are responding with denial.
I've been on topic for the entire thread, and, just to be clear, and as a reminder, the strawman your mate posted was to suggest that anybody, anywhere, has ever said that driving below the speed limit is automatically safe. Nobody has ever said that, and his two attempts to prove otherwise were quickly scotched by the two people he quoted.
Here it is again
AA999 said:
Not simply that 30mph is safe and 31mph is not safe as many have eluded to by simply quoting the black and white nature of road law.
Now, if you want to show that that is not a straw man argument, all you have to do is to provide proof that someone has ever said that.heebeegeetee said:
2. Of course it makes sense. You are quoting a figure to illustrate how dangerous the roads are, but that figure contains high risk groups, such as young drivers who according to 1 source make up 1.5% of the driving population but have 12% of the accidents, and bikers who I dare say produce similar figures, and business drivers and lorry drivers who clock up tens of thousands of miles per year in all weather,in vehicles that are difficult to drive - none of that is relevant to me, a middle aged private motorist.
It's very relevant to you if one of those people crashes into you. Or do you only drive on roads populated by other "middle aged private motorists"?OTBC said:
heebeegeetee said:
Don't know what you mean about reducing the risk - nobodies risk is reduced, it is what it is. My risk is what it is, I have the risk of an ordinary average road user who isn't young, doesn't ride a bike, .
Riding a bike isn't high risk, where did you get that from? Per mile travelled cycling is safer than walking your perception is skewed.v12Legs said:
heebeegeetee said:
2. Of course it makes sense. You are quoting a figure to illustrate how dangerous the roads are, but that figure contains high risk groups, such as young drivers who according to 1 source make up 1.5% of the driving population but have 12% of the accidents, and bikers who I dare say produce similar figures, and business drivers and lorry drivers who clock up tens of thousands of miles per year in all weather,in vehicles that are difficult to drive - none of that is relevant to me, a middle aged private motorist.
It's very relevant to you if one of those people crashes into you. Or do you only drive on roads populated by other "middle aged private motorists"?But there's no point in the sweeping statements, the out-of-context scare-mongering figures aimed at everybody imo.
heebeegeetee said:
singlecoil said:
Stung a bit, didn't it .
Dream on . good god! You do rate yourself, don't you?
I haven't read the rest of your post 'cos I know there'll be nothing there.
It's a shame that you didn't read the rest of the post because it makes a point about a common misconception, the idea that some people are operating on the notion that driving below the speed limit is automatically safe.
I've never yet come across anyone who has ever said or written that, the only time I have ever seen it mentioned is by people who dislike speed cameras etc. and who claim that those that enforce speed limits are operating on that principle. I took your friend to task about this but he got quite upset, and personal, which was a pity although I daresay he didn't see it that way.
So, what I want to ask you is this, have you ever come across anyone making the claim that driving below the speed limit is automatically safe? Ideally this would be something you could link to so that we could read it in the original context.
heebeegeetee said:
Of course not, and by all means target higher risk drivers esp. the young ones 'cos we have a duty to keep them alive imo.
But there's no point in the sweeping statements, the out-of-context scare-mongering figures aimed at everybody imo.
Unless you're suggesting we have different speed limits aimed at different groups - pretty unworkable - I'm afraid you'll just have to accept that your speed needs to be restricted in order to restrain those who are not as safe a driver as you.But there's no point in the sweeping statements, the out-of-context scare-mongering figures aimed at everybody imo.
OTBC said:
Mill Wheel said:
This accident was included in the 3 year KSI stats used to justify the placement of speed cameras at Ings, which started in April 2003.
I've never used the term straw man, and I didn't dispute the collision happened, my question was can you show that this accident or the drunk you mentioned were used to justify siting a speed camera as you claimed.You can't.
Because you made it up.
Prove me wrong.
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/POST-PN-218.pdf
Parliamentary Guidance said:
Box 2 Guidelines applying to speed camera use
DfT guidelines
Location and operation of cameras:
• The majority (85%) of cameras must be in areas with a specified minimum level of death and injury within 1 km in the previous three years (4 collisions resulting in death/serious injury for fixed cameras, 2 for mobile).
• Crashes need not have been speed-related but it must be shown that speeding is a problem at the location
Since YOU are the one accusing me of making this up, it is now your turn to prove me wrong, as you clearly have no idea of what you are talking about, yet feel free to accuse me of making things up.DfT guidelines
Location and operation of cameras:
• The majority (85%) of cameras must be in areas with a specified minimum level of death and injury within 1 km in the previous three years (4 collisions resulting in death/serious injury for fixed cameras, 2 for mobile).
• Crashes need not have been speed-related but it must be shown that speeding is a problem at the location
You really are a Grade A
who apparently judges others by your own standards of behaviour!Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff