150 mph M25 8-10
Discussion
wc98 said:
flemke said:
Your contributory factor numbers are misleading.
In 2013 data (most recent published), for fatalities alone, there were 201 units of contributory factors (the average fatal accident had slightly more than 2 contributory factors).
Out of the 201 units, 15 units, or 7.5%, were "Exceeding speed limit".
Another 13 units, or 6.5%, were for "Traveling too fast for conditions".
The two categories are not interchangeable or merely to be added together.
Traveling too fast for conditions is, by definition, bad driving, unacceptable driving. It could be driving at 18 mph past a school at leaving time and hitting a child, or driving at 28 mph on black ice in a built-up area and hitting a pedestrian - we don't know, and in relation to this thread it does not matter. "Too fast for the conditions" is precisely that - bad driving.
"Exceeding speed limit", in itself, is not necessarily dangerous, as we know, whereas "Too fast for the conditions" is always dangerous.
If the "Exceeding speed limit" was indeed a contributory factor to the fatality, then by definition it was also "Too fast for the conditions". If "Exceeding speed limit" was indeed a contributory factor to an accident, it is logically impossible for "Exceeding speed limit" not to have been also "Too fast for the conditions". Therefore the number of "Too fast for the conditions" must always be equal to or greater than "Exceeding speed limit".
In any case, the two numbers should not be summed.
As for other general categories of contributory factors:
- 69 units of "Driver/Rider error or reaction (34%)
- 23 units of "Impairment or distraction" (11.5%)
- 28 units of "Behaviour or inexperience" (14%)
I contrasted exceeding the speed limit with bad driving, the latter being much worse than the former.
As "Too fast for the conditions" is obviously bad driving, the 13 units that it comprised in 2013 should be added to the other categories of units ("Driver/Rider error or reaction", et al) that were also bad driving. All together, they sum to 133 units of bad driving (not including a few other smaller ones which I have not specified here), as against the 15 units of "Exceeding speed limit".
it would be interesting to see the statistics for accidents over the last ten years where vehicles involved were travelling over 100 mph ,i would suspect there were very few instances where this was the case.In 2013 data (most recent published), for fatalities alone, there were 201 units of contributory factors (the average fatal accident had slightly more than 2 contributory factors).
Out of the 201 units, 15 units, or 7.5%, were "Exceeding speed limit".
Another 13 units, or 6.5%, were for "Traveling too fast for conditions".
The two categories are not interchangeable or merely to be added together.
Traveling too fast for conditions is, by definition, bad driving, unacceptable driving. It could be driving at 18 mph past a school at leaving time and hitting a child, or driving at 28 mph on black ice in a built-up area and hitting a pedestrian - we don't know, and in relation to this thread it does not matter. "Too fast for the conditions" is precisely that - bad driving.
"Exceeding speed limit", in itself, is not necessarily dangerous, as we know, whereas "Too fast for the conditions" is always dangerous.
If the "Exceeding speed limit" was indeed a contributory factor to the fatality, then by definition it was also "Too fast for the conditions". If "Exceeding speed limit" was indeed a contributory factor to an accident, it is logically impossible for "Exceeding speed limit" not to have been also "Too fast for the conditions". Therefore the number of "Too fast for the conditions" must always be equal to or greater than "Exceeding speed limit".
In any case, the two numbers should not be summed.
As for other general categories of contributory factors:
- 69 units of "Driver/Rider error or reaction (34%)
- 23 units of "Impairment or distraction" (11.5%)
- 28 units of "Behaviour or inexperience" (14%)
I contrasted exceeding the speed limit with bad driving, the latter being much worse than the former.
As "Too fast for the conditions" is obviously bad driving, the 13 units that it comprised in 2013 should be added to the other categories of units ("Driver/Rider error or reaction", et al) that were also bad driving. All together, they sum to 133 units of bad driving (not including a few other smaller ones which I have not specified here), as against the 15 units of "Exceeding speed limit".
Relatively few journeys (as a percentage of all journeys) involve travelling at 100+
vonhosen said:
Why interesting?
Relatively few journeys (as a percentage of all journeys) involve travelling at 100+
to see if the act of travelling at significantly over the imposed limit results in increased incidence of accidents compared to accidents that occurred around or below the limit .purely out of interest .Relatively few journeys (as a percentage of all journeys) involve travelling at 100+
wc98 said:
vonhosen said:
Why interesting?
Relatively few journeys (as a percentage of all journeys) involve travelling at 100+
to see if the act of travelling at significantly over the imposed limit results in increased incidence of accidents compared to accidents that occurred around or below the limit .purely out of interest .Relatively few journeys (as a percentage of all journeys) involve travelling at 100+
That's before you get to the point that speed can't be measured accurately in all collisions that have happened (yet).
vonhosen said:
Really?
You struggle with 95mph v 140mph?
The law caters for that by requiring you to have a functioning speedo in the first place.
Someone might. I didn't say me.You struggle with 95mph v 140mph?
The law caters for that by requiring you to have a functioning speedo in the first place.
Different cars portray their speed differently. Maybe you need to experience a wider range of cars.
A speedo can break.
Odd circumstances yes, but laws need to cater for all situations.
I'm just amazed that contempt based on speed enhances punishment. Yet for say using a mobile phone while driving an enhancement on punishment with contempt isn't seen. Ie, being overtly obvious would show more contempt imo, while those hiding it from view are possibly more dangerous.
Just a weird facet of the law. Arbitrary I'd say.
Mr Whippy said:
vonhosen said:
Really?
You struggle with 95mph v 140mph?
The law caters for that by requiring you to have a functioning speedo in the first place.
Someone might. I didn't say me.You struggle with 95mph v 140mph?
The law caters for that by requiring you to have a functioning speedo in the first place.
Different cars portray their speed differently. Maybe you need to experience a wider range of cars.
A speedo can break.
Odd circumstances yes, but laws need to cater for all situations.
I'm just amazed that contempt based on speed enhances punishment. Yet for say using a mobile phone while driving an enhancement on punishment with contempt isn't seen. Ie, being overtly obvious would show more contempt imo, while those hiding it from view are possibly more dangerous.
Just a weird facet of the law. Arbitrary I'd say.
What makes you think the law 'has' to cater for all situations?
It's your lookout if your speedo breaks not the laws. You don't have to drive whilst it's broken, you choose to.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 29th March 18:05
vonhosen said:
Higher speeds attract an increased punishment because of the wilful contempt being shown by the driver, it doesn't mean that it is being claimed that the speed concerned was dangerous and therefore attracting greater punishment. Again no evidence of danger being present is required to enforce, speed limits are a proactive control measure in that respect, as action can be taken before any danger is required to materialise.
Dangerous driving is a different matter & carries a potential custodial sentence. Some degree of danger is required in evidence for it, so the law is reacting (rather than proactive) to danger caused.
In saying that I'm not claiming that it's impossible to do 120mph in 'relative' safety on our roads, just that it is way outside what our elected government has dictated the compromise to be, so it is dealt with on that basis.
"Willful contempt" - the same notion employed throughout history by dictatorships attempting to justify their imposition of power upon the controlled. No thought of proportionality, no recognition that dissenters may have a point, absolutely closed to any question of the legitimacy of the presumptions and premises of the powerful - just indignant fury that the controlled should dare to challenge their dictates.Dangerous driving is a different matter & carries a potential custodial sentence. Some degree of danger is required in evidence for it, so the law is reacting (rather than proactive) to danger caused.
In saying that I'm not claiming that it's impossible to do 120mph in 'relative' safety on our roads, just that it is way outside what our elected government has dictated the compromise to be, so it is dealt with on that basis.
I believe that very few of us drivers have "willful contempt" for the underlying goal of speed limits.
What some of us - and certainly I - feel contempt for is the capricious and abusive enforcement of posted speed limits in completely inappropriate circumstances.
My favourites include speed traps at the exits of villages, rather than at the entrances, and on open, clear straights after one has just finished going through a series of twisty, off-camber, limited visibility bends.
Those enforcement perversions are contemptible - but I guess the boys have to keep their prosecution numbers up, eh?
Edited by flemke on Monday 30th March 01:28
vonhosen said:
I've driven a lot of vehicles in my in time (2, 4 & many more wheels). 95 v 140 it doesn't matter what the vehicle is, you still pass the scenery at the same rate.
What makes you think the law 'has' to cater for all situations?
It's your lookout if your speedo breaks not the laws. You don't have to drive whilst it's broken, you choose to.
I know all that.What makes you think the law 'has' to cater for all situations?
It's your lookout if your speedo breaks not the laws. You don't have to drive whilst it's broken, you choose to.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 29th March 18:05
But it's still arbitrary to enhance a punishment based on assumed levels of contempt due to the amount people break the speed limit by.
I'll still stand by my point that speeds are hard to compare. The human brain is quite crap at absolutes and uses lots of relative considerations to judge speed and acceleration.
Especially those who may not drive very fast very often in a wide range of cars.
Simple stuff like hopping from a go kart to a road car, without looking at the speedo you can find yourself going much faster than you think when you glance at your speedo the first time.
Dave
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff