Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents
Discussion
Moonhawk said:
Jon1967x said:
Having been in Wales for a few days and stuck behind cars driving along at 50 in a 60 limit there is frustration - hence this isn't always about someone wanting to break the speed limit behind someone who's doing it. When you do get a chance to over take safely you take it, but I find it frustrating when they put the speed camera on the only straight bit of road where this happens. If they deem it unsafe to overtake, stick a double white line down the middle otherwise the camera would be better placed on the approach to some of the nasty bends or near the end of the said straight to get the speed back down before the road gets twisty, but not right in the middle in the overtake sweet spot which is actually more dangerous because the last thing you want to do is cause someone to brake in the middle of an overtake because they spot a camera at the last minute.
The problem is - the "speed kills" mantra has become so ingrained - that the 40.01mph brigade now think that they hold the moral high ground when travelling at such a speed even on clear, dry NSL roads with good visibility - they simply don't give a monkeys about the traffic they are holding up behind them.The thing is however - if they displayed such behaviour on a driving test - they would likely fail it under section 20.
https://www.learnerdriving.com/driving-test/markin...
"The examiner is expecting you to - Drive up to the speed limit if road, weather and traffic conditions permit or at a realistic speed if not"
Driving faults recorded
20 Progress
Appropriate speed:
*Crawls along at slow speeds on clear roads.
*Makes no attempt to achieve maximum speeds for the road when safe to do so.
*Reduces speed excessively when the conditions do not merit doing so.
*Makes slow progress through the gears in normal driving.
Driving faults recorded
18 Use of speed:
Drives in excess of the speed limit.
Drives at a speed, which is too fast for the road, traffic or weather conditions.
Drives too fast on the approach to certain hazards.
Drives too fast on the approach to junctions.
It's as I said earlier, drive at a safe speed for the conditions up to but not beyond the limit. That is what is being looked for.
Those who commit faults under fault code 18 or fault code 20 don't hold the moral high ground.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 1st November 13:45
vonhosen said:
You also need to look at other faults.
Not sure how that relates to the point I was making - faults under section 18 are a given since they are clearly outside the law or clearly dangerous.Travelling too slow/not making progress is less clear cut and is rarely policed/enforced - hence the reason many drivers seem to think that doing so is perfectly justified.
Moonhawk said:
The problem is - the "speed kills" mantra has become so ingrained - that the 40.01mph brigade now think that they hold the moral high ground when travelling at such a speed even on clear, dry NSL roads with good visibility - they simply don't give a monkeys about the traffic they are holding up behind them.
Most of what you say I agree with, but the above I have a problem with.First of all, Speed Kills is a slogan, not a mantra, and people were driving slowly long before anybody thought of it. The idea that a slogan causes people to drive at 40mph on an NSL is fanciful and requires more proof that proof by assertion. I've been around a f
k of a lot lot longer than that slogan, and I am happy to have this opportunity to assure you that there have always been plenty of slow drivers.Dammit said:
Which also circles back to HBGT's misconception - that we have the bare minimum of deaths on our roads due to everyone being quite frankly excellent at driving a car. The vast (well into the 90% range) of accidents are caused by people driving badly - not paying attention, not knowing the basic physics that inform how their car behaves (Phatboy), not looking (HBGT again), or performing a rash, dangerous overtake due to being "frustrated". Hundreds of thousands of teenagers are frustrated, but it doesn't kill anyone, it just sells a lot of kleenex. It's not a valid excuse to trot out after you've caused a prang.
I've just had a tea/keyboard interface moment. :moment:So, Dammit, taken all that you've said at face value , *if* it turns out that we as drivers do less of all that than the divers of other nations, does that not say we're doing a good job? If you don't think we're doing a good job, then what do you put down the excellent accident rate down to? As I say, the *only* way you can make road travel look dangerous is by quoting a figure out of context and ignoring the rate.
Fact is, the figures are astonishing. As I say, just in the UK alone millions and millions of miles will be traveled, so that in the week it will be billions,billions of miles travelled week after week after week, year in, year out, and the accident rate will be extremely low.
Not only that but to get to that figure you have to include high risk groups who alone have accident rates completely out of proportion to the norm.
I'm not sure, given how many times I've (I believe) clearly articulated my position, and you've then gone off on a tangent, that it's actually possible to discuss this with you.
BUT! Hope springs eternal, so lets give it a go.
1) Our KSI rate is below that of other nations of a comparable population size- true
2) This is, to a degree, negated by the issue of overcrowding reducing speeds - we have roughly the same population as France, but half the space
3) But overall, we can be said to be doing "well" in comparison to other nations
I've never argued, or denied this - which is handy as it has absolutely nothing to do with the point I've been making, and that you've ignored, denied, or changed the subject rather than address.
So lets look at the point I have been making:
- We kill ~2,000 people on the roads each year, we should not view this as an acceptable cost for being able to drive a car, but seek to reduce the figure to as close to zero as we can
Further to that point, thanks to the figures that Moonhawk dug-up, we see that ~70% of accidents are caused by inattention/driver error - which, given that we just need people to pay more attention to what they are doing, doesn't seem like an outrage to request that people look where they are going (although I know you, as a Pistorian, have issues with this).
It's really that simple - we kill a lot of people (where a family is ~4.4 people, 2,000 is a lot, I don't care how many people are killed by staplers each year as this isn't "Stationaryheads, office-supplies matter") so lets try to reduce that.
I have £50 that says you can't answer that without going off-piste.
Prove me wrong.
BUT! Hope springs eternal, so lets give it a go.
1) Our KSI rate is below that of other nations of a comparable population size- true
2) This is, to a degree, negated by the issue of overcrowding reducing speeds - we have roughly the same population as France, but half the space
3) But overall, we can be said to be doing "well" in comparison to other nations
I've never argued, or denied this - which is handy as it has absolutely nothing to do with the point I've been making, and that you've ignored, denied, or changed the subject rather than address.
So lets look at the point I have been making:
- We kill ~2,000 people on the roads each year, we should not view this as an acceptable cost for being able to drive a car, but seek to reduce the figure to as close to zero as we can
Further to that point, thanks to the figures that Moonhawk dug-up, we see that ~70% of accidents are caused by inattention/driver error - which, given that we just need people to pay more attention to what they are doing, doesn't seem like an outrage to request that people look where they are going (although I know you, as a Pistorian, have issues with this).
It's really that simple - we kill a lot of people (where a family is ~4.4 people, 2,000 is a lot, I don't care how many people are killed by staplers each year as this isn't "Stationaryheads, office-supplies matter") so lets try to reduce that.
I have £50 that says you can't answer that without going off-piste.
Prove me wrong.
The argument is not so much whether we are complacent, its more about how much harder to push and the balance with other things. In isolation better roads, better education, better policing to get banned drivers off the road, get cars without MOTs off the road etc can all help reduce the KSI figures.
Put it another way, 1,700 people died on the roads last year, 53,000 died of heart disease.
Of the risk factors on the road, drink and drugs, poorly maintained cars etc are all material in addition to speed.
So lets say better speed enforcement and policy can reduce the 1700 by 10% - thats 170 people. Could the same investment save 170 people from heart disease - that's only a 0.3% reduction. Who knows? We all have to die of something.
So all the things we (including me) defend about speed limits and speeding (despite being caught, I know I was wrong so don't moan too much) are valid in terms of benefit. And I'd hope the opponents aren't so much wanting to reverse the logic, argue speed limits are pointless or whatever their mantra is. Its whether the focus and money would be better spent elsewhere. From an impact on the number of people, assuming you believe you can't do everything and make the world perfect, the local community speed enforcement civilians would probably achieve more benefit standing outside a school heckling fat kids rather than buying their grand children sweets when not pointing a hairdryer at people driving past and writing down their reg.
But.. its politics and people will be people.
Put it another way, 1,700 people died on the roads last year, 53,000 died of heart disease.
Of the risk factors on the road, drink and drugs, poorly maintained cars etc are all material in addition to speed.
So lets say better speed enforcement and policy can reduce the 1700 by 10% - thats 170 people. Could the same investment save 170 people from heart disease - that's only a 0.3% reduction. Who knows? We all have to die of something.
So all the things we (including me) defend about speed limits and speeding (despite being caught, I know I was wrong so don't moan too much) are valid in terms of benefit. And I'd hope the opponents aren't so much wanting to reverse the logic, argue speed limits are pointless or whatever their mantra is. Its whether the focus and money would be better spent elsewhere. From an impact on the number of people, assuming you believe you can't do everything and make the world perfect, the local community speed enforcement civilians would probably achieve more benefit standing outside a school heckling fat kids rather than buying their grand children sweets when not pointing a hairdryer at people driving past and writing down their reg.
But.. its politics and people will be people.
It's not so much that, it's the danger of complacency - if we say to ourselves that we're happy with the number of casualties then we'll never reduce them.
That we need to do something about the rising rate of diabetes etc I more than agree with - I think it's a very much understated problem.
These things are all related to one another - if we can get people to use a mode of transport that raises their heart rate, say walking to the shops rather than taking the car, then that's a massive win for society as a whole due to reduced congestion and increased public health.
It would be fantastic (and, I admit, unrealistic) to get to a point where you choose to take the car out for the pleasure of driving it, on free-flowing roads that are untroubled by congestion, pot-holes, and speed camera installations.
That dream would require getting the vast majority of people to make a different choice than the one which they currently default to, which is to drive to the shops, to work, to the gym etc.
To go back to the KSI's issue - one of the reasons we have a problem getting people to consider, say, cycling is the fear that if you ride a bike you'll become a KSI figure due to the driving standards when around cyclists in the UK.
So I think that a focus on reducing road deaths through legislative changes (SMIDSY should be a nailed on admission of guilt, NOT a defence, for example), and through driver education, sadly probably twinned with an increase in bans etc, will also lead to a reduction in heart attacks - it's not a one or the other thing.
That we need to do something about the rising rate of diabetes etc I more than agree with - I think it's a very much understated problem.
These things are all related to one another - if we can get people to use a mode of transport that raises their heart rate, say walking to the shops rather than taking the car, then that's a massive win for society as a whole due to reduced congestion and increased public health.
It would be fantastic (and, I admit, unrealistic) to get to a point where you choose to take the car out for the pleasure of driving it, on free-flowing roads that are untroubled by congestion, pot-holes, and speed camera installations.
That dream would require getting the vast majority of people to make a different choice than the one which they currently default to, which is to drive to the shops, to work, to the gym etc.
To go back to the KSI's issue - one of the reasons we have a problem getting people to consider, say, cycling is the fear that if you ride a bike you'll become a KSI figure due to the driving standards when around cyclists in the UK.
So I think that a focus on reducing road deaths through legislative changes (SMIDSY should be a nailed on admission of guilt, NOT a defence, for example), and through driver education, sadly probably twinned with an increase in bans etc, will also lead to a reduction in heart attacks - it's not a one or the other thing.
Dammit said:
I'm not sure, given how many times I've (I believe) clearly articulated my position, and you've then gone off on a tangent, that it's actually possible to discuss this with you.
BUT! Hope springs eternal, so lets give it a go.
1) Our KSI rate is below that of other nations of a comparable population size- true
2) This is, to a degree, negated by the issue of overcrowding reducing speeds - we have roughly the same population as France, but half the space
3) But overall, we can be said to be doing "well" in comparison to other nations
I've never argued, or denied this - which is handy as it has absolutely nothing to do with the point I've been making, and that you've ignored, denied, or changed the subject rather than address.
So lets look at the point I have been making:
- We kill ~2,000 people on the roads each year, we should not view this as an acceptable cost for being able to drive a car, but seek to reduce the figure to as close to zero as we can
Further to that point, thanks to the figures that Moonhawk dug-up, we see that ~70% of accidents are caused by inattention/driver error - which, given that we just need people to pay more attention to what they are doing, doesn't seem like an outrage to request that people look where they are going (although I know you, as a Pistorian, have issues with this).
It's really that simple - we kill a lot of people (where a family is ~4.4 people, 2,000 is a lot, I don't care how many people are killed by staplers each year as this isn't "Stationaryheads, office-supplies matter") so lets try to reduce that.
I have £50 that says you can't answer that without going off-piste.
Prove me wrong.
My point has been all along that the only reason you use the figure in isolation is to deliberately mislead, and you just continue to argue this, (which is not a point in itself). I've told you that the figure is also a function of the size of the population. You won't accept this because it does not suit your "point". So you choose to mislead.BUT! Hope springs eternal, so lets give it a go.
1) Our KSI rate is below that of other nations of a comparable population size- true
2) This is, to a degree, negated by the issue of overcrowding reducing speeds - we have roughly the same population as France, but half the space
3) But overall, we can be said to be doing "well" in comparison to other nations
I've never argued, or denied this - which is handy as it has absolutely nothing to do with the point I've been making, and that you've ignored, denied, or changed the subject rather than address.
So lets look at the point I have been making:
- We kill ~2,000 people on the roads each year, we should not view this as an acceptable cost for being able to drive a car, but seek to reduce the figure to as close to zero as we can
Further to that point, thanks to the figures that Moonhawk dug-up, we see that ~70% of accidents are caused by inattention/driver error - which, given that we just need people to pay more attention to what they are doing, doesn't seem like an outrage to request that people look where they are going (although I know you, as a Pistorian, have issues with this).
It's really that simple - we kill a lot of people (where a family is ~4.4 people, 2,000 is a lot, I don't care how many people are killed by staplers each year as this isn't "Stationaryheads, office-supplies matter") so lets try to reduce that.
I have £50 that says you can't answer that without going off-piste.
Prove me wrong.
Were we Finland, with a population of 5 million, we'd have far fewer casualties as indeed Finland does. But it has a higher casualty rate which, as you know full well but you aren't man enough to accept, is pretty much all that really matters.
The reason I mention other countries (I've no idea why you do and btw we are considerably less than half the size of France - I guess you've been there given the b
ks you've spouted about that lovely country) and other causes of death etc, is to attempt to show you that no matter how you measure it, the UK has significantly worse problems than road safety. Road safety is one thing we're good at, and you should recognise this.You're perfectly entitled to your viewpoint, but it's not much of a point if you consistently have to mislead and overstate it.
Dammit said:
It's not so much that, it's the danger of complacency - if we say to ourselves that we're happy with the number of casualties then we'll never reduce them.
Willfully or otherwise, you miss the point. We are in a situation of consistent decline of casualties. It has been consistent for a long time, save for when the 'speed kills' merchants managed to halt that decline in the 2000s, but the decline has begun again and is continuing.We will hit diminishing returns though, whereby the money we're spending is not achieving much and that money would save far more lives if it were spent elsewhere.
Personally I'd like to see a lot more money spent on providing similar facilities for cyclists that our neighbouring countries have. I'd rather we were more like Holland which has the safest roads for driver and for cyclists, something we emphatically do not.
The benefits to the nation of cycling are so profound that the money spent would achieve tremendous returns not just for road safety but in health and wellbeing too and would remove us from the distinction of being the fattest in Europe.
It would be great if we could get rid of this obsession with speed.
Moonhawk said:
The vast majority of drivers are competent. Given how many vehicle journeys occur on the roads every day, the number of vehicles, the population density etc - i'd say the fact that our road safety record is as good as it is, is quite frankly remarkable.
Take Denmark as an example. They do have a slightly better casualty rate than we do (3.0 vs 3.5 per 100,000 inhabitants) - but Denmark only has half the population density of the UK, much lower road density and a much lower incidence of car ownership.
Look at the figures for Norway, where they have very low speed and alcohol limits, as well as having elevated enforcement to an art form, and they STILL kill proportionally more people than the UK:Take Denmark as an example. They do have a slightly better casualty rate than we do (3.0 vs 3.5 per 100,000 inhabitants) - but Denmark only has half the population density of the UK, much lower road density and a much lower incidence of car ownership.
Link
Before anyone starts, I'm fully aware that there's no reason for complacency - but perhaps we should be trying to learn from others mistakes rather than emulating them.
Edited by Phatboy317 on Saturday 1st November 19:42
heebeegeetee said:
My point has been all along that the only reason you use the figure in isolation is to deliberately mislead, and you just continue to argue this, (which is not a point in itself). I've told you that the figure is also a function of the size of the population. You won't accept this because it does not suit your "point". So you choose to mislead.
Were we Finland, with a population of 5 million, we'd have far fewer casualties as indeed Finland does. But it has a higher casualty rate which, as you know full well but you aren't man enough to accept, is pretty much all that really matters.
The reason I mention other countries (I've no idea why you do and btw we are considerably less than half the size of France - I guess you've been there given the bks you've spouted about that lovely country) and other causes of death etc, is to attempt to show you that no matter how you measure it, the UK has significantly worse problems than road safety. Road safety is one thing we're good at, and you should recognise this.
You're perfectly entitled to your viewpoint, but it's not much of a point if you consistently have to mislead and overstate it.
Sorry, I had to come back to this - it's like a wobbly tooth.Were we Finland, with a population of 5 million, we'd have far fewer casualties as indeed Finland does. But it has a higher casualty rate which, as you know full well but you aren't man enough to accept, is pretty much all that really matters.
The reason I mention other countries (I've no idea why you do and btw we are considerably less than half the size of France - I guess you've been there given the b
ks you've spouted about that lovely country) and other causes of death etc, is to attempt to show you that no matter how you measure it, the UK has significantly worse problems than road safety. Road safety is one thing we're good at, and you should recognise this.You're perfectly entitled to your viewpoint, but it's not much of a point if you consistently have to mislead and overstate it.
You are still trying to argue your own point, rather than answer the one that I raised.
I even offered to pay you if you'd actually stay on topic, which is a first.
That you didn't, I suspect, is because a) you know you are wrong and b) you have the debating abilities of a foot stool.
heebeegeetee said:
We will hit diminishing returns though, whereby the money we're spending is not achieving much and that money would save far more lives if it were spent elsewhere.
I wonder how your point above gels with those who insist that speed limit enforcement, especially by automatic camera, is all about the revenue? If speed limits are reduced, and enforced, then surely that's more money that can be spent elsewhere?Or has the b
ks about speed limit enforcement being all about the money finally been seen to be the bks that it always has been? 
Dammit said:
jaf01uk said:
Point completely missed [snip]
Sorry, what was your point again?It seemed to be a response to Robin Essex's post, which was a remarkable demonstration of unwitting irony.
I'll reproduce it here for you:
"Similar situation near me. 3 accidents in a year on NSL single carriageway road. Call for lower speed limit, so it's now 50mph. Except, ALL the accidents were head on's whilst overtaking. Nothing to do with speed"
I'm going to make an assumption, which is bad practice, but I'll call it out so people can choose to validate it themselves.
Here it comes: the people overtaking unsafely wanted to get past the vehicle "in their way", as they wanted to travel at a higher speed than would be possible if they continued to follow the vehicle in front of them.
Quite how that has "nothing to do with speed" I am unsure - unless, of course, the reason for the overtake was, erm, nope - nothing else springs to mind.
Now we don't know if the vehicle that was the subject of the overtake was travelling at 10mph, 50mph or 1,000mph - it doesn't matter, all that matters is that a) the overtaking driver wanted to go faster and b) they could not exercise any self restraint and wait until it was safe to so do, leading to c) head-on collision with an innocent third party.
Unless, of course, as I pointed out in my response, you view the overtaking driver as the victim, as they were "forced" to overtake, due to that well known killer, frustration.
Rather than keeping flogging a dead horse in relation to what everyone knows already about speed in isolation in relation to road safety why not concentrate on the other 70%? Because it is easy to automatically enforce speed, cameras don't pick up the 70% of drivers who don't pay attention to their surroundings and make bad judgments, I think the reason that people go on about traffic cops on the roads was that in the past if you cut someone up or did something stupid the majority of the time you were likely to get pulled and receive some "roadside education" on the spot, we have a situation now where someone can carelessly collide with another car and it won't even get a police attendance, 50:50 with the insurance, yet do 36mph on the same bit of road and you get 3 points and a fine if there happens to be a van about?
im missing the point here chaps, speed limits are the law so if drivers don't want to abide by them don't drive a car - use public transport.
Speed cameras are positioned to enforce the speed limit, albeit they may be revenue spinners but if dheads did not break the speed limit they would not be required....
the facts as i see them, decide which category you fall into....
)
Speed cameras are positioned to enforce the speed limit, albeit they may be revenue spinners but if d
heads did not break the speed limit they would not be required....the facts as i see them, decide which category you fall into....
)Governments, local and national, want to reduce deaths and serious injuries on the road and want quick results so they can claim come the next election that they've made a positive difference. Slowing down traffic generally reduces the severity of any accidents that occur and may prevent some altogether as people have more chance of reacting to dangers at low speed even if their attention is poor.
One of the key principles of safe driving is driving at such a speed that you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear on your own side of the road. That means slowing down on narrow twisty roads where visibility is poor, slowing down when it's dark and when conditions are poor such as in bad weather. It also means keeping your speed down when there are more hazards and more potential for something to happen such as in built up areas. The trouble is, none of this fits in very well with a high impact advertising campaign designed to shock people into changing their behaviour, which is the sort of thing the government likes to do to influence people. So we have an image of a mangled child and the slogan "Speed kills."
Advertising works, that's why people are going out and buying their Christmas decorations already and why everybody just has to have the latest iThingy. So now people are driving along shopping for Christmas decorations on their iThingies believing they're safe if they stick to the speed limit. Even those that aren't often have far more limited observation and anticipation skills than they should and less capacity than they should to consider and fit in with other road users. It's not easy to explain the finer points of advanced driving, the ideal level of skill that everyone should have, to people who aren't terribly interested in driving well. A lot of people aren't going to watch a television programme all about it. So, a two minute clip of a child getting hit by a car and the slogan "Speed kills" just to get people to crash and run children over at lower speeds.
The modern thing is to encourage people to see car usage as anti social and so teaching children to cross the road safely is all a bit:
I used to work with someone who was part of a campaign to have the speed limit past her house cut because someone crashed into her garden. The limit got cut from 50mph to 40mph. The guy who crashed was high on drugs and doing 80mph at 1am in the snow.
An NSL where I live was cut to 50mph and then this happened:
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/10049744...
Someone does a ludicrous speed which contributes to the severity of their accident and the speed limit, which they were vastly exceeding, gets cut. Ordinary people doing moderate, but now illegal speeds, are penalised while the drugged up nuts still do speeds that are crazy by any normal person's standards for the roads and the conditions and crash.
Speed doesn't kill. If it did mass high speed transport like planes and trains would be more dangerous than road transport. It's a lax attitude to careful and thoughtful driving that kills and the more we're simply told to slow down and the more speed limits are cut to less than people can reasonably be expected to drive the more we'll stop listening as the interest will pass as with any marketing initiative and fashion.
One of the key principles of safe driving is driving at such a speed that you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear on your own side of the road. That means slowing down on narrow twisty roads where visibility is poor, slowing down when it's dark and when conditions are poor such as in bad weather. It also means keeping your speed down when there are more hazards and more potential for something to happen such as in built up areas. The trouble is, none of this fits in very well with a high impact advertising campaign designed to shock people into changing their behaviour, which is the sort of thing the government likes to do to influence people. So we have an image of a mangled child and the slogan "Speed kills."
Advertising works, that's why people are going out and buying their Christmas decorations already and why everybody just has to have the latest iThingy. So now people are driving along shopping for Christmas decorations on their iThingies believing they're safe if they stick to the speed limit. Even those that aren't often have far more limited observation and anticipation skills than they should and less capacity than they should to consider and fit in with other road users. It's not easy to explain the finer points of advanced driving, the ideal level of skill that everyone should have, to people who aren't terribly interested in driving well. A lot of people aren't going to watch a television programme all about it. So, a two minute clip of a child getting hit by a car and the slogan "Speed kills" just to get people to crash and run children over at lower speeds.
The modern thing is to encourage people to see car usage as anti social and so teaching children to cross the road safely is all a bit:
I used to work with someone who was part of a campaign to have the speed limit past her house cut because someone crashed into her garden. The limit got cut from 50mph to 40mph. The guy who crashed was high on drugs and doing 80mph at 1am in the snow.
An NSL where I live was cut to 50mph and then this happened:
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/10049744...
Someone does a ludicrous speed which contributes to the severity of their accident and the speed limit, which they were vastly exceeding, gets cut. Ordinary people doing moderate, but now illegal speeds, are penalised while the drugged up nuts still do speeds that are crazy by any normal person's standards for the roads and the conditions and crash.
Speed doesn't kill. If it did mass high speed transport like planes and trains would be more dangerous than road transport. It's a lax attitude to careful and thoughtful driving that kills and the more we're simply told to slow down and the more speed limits are cut to less than people can reasonably be expected to drive the more we'll stop listening as the interest will pass as with any marketing initiative and fashion.
jaf01uk said:
I refer you to my post at 1051, , fairly obvious I thought? But it relates to the "other 70% of causes" which needs addressing, the A9 accidents are predominantly wrong siders, I am not making excuses for frustrated drivers nor claiming they are victims, but they do have a right to overtake (if safe - contrary to BRAKE's wishes) if they can do so within the limit, drivers doing 40mph on perfectly good nsl's can be more dangerous than someone exceeding the limit by a small amount but paying attention. Politically driven average speed cameras are NOT the answer, but seems fairly typical of the "everything is a result of speed" mantra which is present even in this thread?
Rather than keeping flogging a dead horse in relation to what everyone knows already about speed in isolation in relation to road safety why not concentrate on the other 70%? Because it is easy to automatically enforce speed, cameras don't pick up the 70% of drivers who don't pay attention to their surroundings and make bad judgments, I think the reason that people go on about traffic cops on the roads was that in the past if you cut someone up or did something stupid the majority of the time you were likely to get pulled and receive some "roadside education" on the spot, we have a situation now where someone can carelessly collide with another car and it won't even get a police attendance, 50:50 with the insurance, yet do 36mph on the same bit of road and you get 3 points and a fine if there happens to be a van about?
I'd be the first person on their feet applauding if we saw every single speed camera in the UK exchanged for a police officer in their stead (and not with his or her feet nailed to an overhead gantry on a motorway, but out patrolling).Rather than keeping flogging a dead horse in relation to what everyone knows already about speed in isolation in relation to road safety why not concentrate on the other 70%? Because it is easy to automatically enforce speed, cameras don't pick up the 70% of drivers who don't pay attention to their surroundings and make bad judgments, I think the reason that people go on about traffic cops on the roads was that in the past if you cut someone up or did something stupid the majority of the time you were likely to get pulled and receive some "roadside education" on the spot, we have a situation now where someone can carelessly collide with another car and it won't even get a police attendance, 50:50 with the insurance, yet do 36mph on the same bit of road and you get 3 points and a fine if there happens to be a van about?
I cycle more miles per year than I drive, between 6-7,000 miles on the bike and around 5,000 in the car, so the majority of my miles are as a "vulnerable road user".
I see a huge amount of selfish, aggressive, thoughtless driving that is impossible to manage via speed camera, but that a real live policeman would be able to do something about.
As I think I'v indicated earlier in this thread I have nothing against speed - I've spent a small fortune modifying my car, H-beam rods, ported and flowed head, larger turbine, back-cut valves, larger injectors, coil-overs, AP Racing brakes etc etc, but it's rare that I even scratch the surface of what the car can actually do.
(It can transport 4 bikes, all kit for a couple of weeks and 2 people at ~150mph down the Autobahn, and that was on the old engine).
Anyway, I have a car, I like my car, I just wish that is was more pleasant to drive it, and (more importantly) I wish that people would pay more attention to what they are doing when they are driving.
Edited by Dammit on Saturday 1st November 21:30
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff