3 points - £100 - Harsh Acceleration

[OTBC]

Then I expect you have a source for that claim Andy? One that doesn't rely on TRL 323?

Post it.

Prove me wrong.

[turbobloke]

OTBC said:

I wondered if you could provide a link to that statement, I can't imagine why you are unable to do so. Where did you read it, can you remember?

I have no need to provide a link to anything. If somebody in an official sounding group wrote in a web article that all fatacs are caused by road death pixies, and I linked to it, would you believe it as "fact"?

As you will have read, possibly at the second attempt by now, the data was in a Transport Dept report to a House of Commons Committee. I had a hard copy at one time and extracted information.

As you appear to be too lazy to look from your uninformed position - at least I knew about the report and the data, you didn't, that's no crime but your supercilious attitude deserves a prod - I'll look on your behalf to see what if anything is online in relation to the source.

HTH

[OTBC]

So you maintain that your claim has nothing to do with TRL 323? Even though it's cited in the report:

http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/29/trans...

[turbobloke]

OTBC said:

So you maintain that your claim has nothing to do with TRL 323? Even though it's cited in the report:

http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/29/trans...

Who, me?

This gets curiouser if so.

You say that TRL 323 is cited in 'the report' but you've claimed not to know what report I've been referring to. Remember this? Not long ago:

OTBC said:

turbobloke said:

Actual data from road accidents has demonstrated that 2% of road accidents are caused by drivers exceeding the posted speed limit.

Out of mild interest, where did you pluck that "fact" from? You must have read it somewhere. Where?

Anyway, if you have need of additional help with road accident / road safety research data you can always ask, but note that a refusal to repeatedly assist the confused and uninformed may offend.

[OTBC]

The ABD made the same claim, and relied for their "evidence" on the Daily Mail article:

http://abdmercia.blogspot.co.uk/2008_09_01_archive...

It would be interesting to discover where turbobloke read the identical claim, but sadly it doesn't look as though he's prepared to say. Funny, that.

[turbobloke]

andyalan10 said:

OTBC said:

turbobloke said:

Actual data from road accidents has demonstrated that 2% of road accidents are caused by drivers exceeding the posted speed limit.

Out of mild interest, where did you pluck that "fact" from? You must have read it somewhere. Where?

OTBC, you quote an article from "The Slower Speed Initiative" newsletter and confuse "excessive speed" with "speed above the posted speed limit"

This is a common occurrence with some parties. It's not deliberate, of course, and totally understandable.



Police Scotland are, bizarrely, looking at exceeding a limit (marginally) not excessive speed.

[OTBC]

Hello turbobloke! I wondered if you could provide the source for that claim you just made about speed not being a significant factor in collisions?

Fourth time.

[andyalan10]

OTBC said:

Then I expect you have a source for that claim Andy? One that doesn't rely on TRL 323?

Post it.

Prove me wrong.

The claim I made was that you and the article you cite confuse "excessive speed" and "exceeding the posted speed limit", which are two different things. And nothing to do with a TRL report. And in deliberately doing so you weaken any argument you may have in favour of lower speeds generally.

Andy

[OTBC]

Where do you think the confusion is?

[turbobloke]

OTBC said:

Hello turbobloke! I wondered if you could provide the source for that claim you just made about speed not being a significant factor in collisions?

Fourth time.

Hi.

I already have, not sure how many times.

[OTBC]

So you maintain that your claim has nothing to do with TRL 323, even though it's cited?

[turbobloke]

For the hard of thinking/reading: DfT Report to the HoC Transport Select Committee.

I've actually read it! Lucky me.

[OTBC]

Yes, which relied on TRL 323, which conflated "Excessive speed" with "Failing to look". Do you dispute this?

[turbobloke]

OTBC said:

So you maintain that your claim has nothing to do with TRL 323, even though it's cited?

If you know TRL 323 is cited in the Report I'm referring to, presumably you have a copy, so why are you asking me about a Report you already know about?

My suspicion is that you are blustering at this point, following a fail with your 'howler' howler, but it's only a suspicion and I would immediately acknowledge that this may not be the case.

As it happens I don't recall TRL323 being mentioned in the Report, but memories are like that. As it also happens, I can remember TRL being referenced, but not 323. Nor 421 as it happens.

[OTBC]

I've asked you four times to cite your source. You've refused. The only source for that claim comes from the ABD, who got it from the Mail, who got it from evidence from TRL 323. Now, you have an opportunity to cite your source to demonstrate that your claim has nothing to do with TRL323. I expect you will make full use of it.

[OTBC]

turbobloke said:

The report also showed that even among the youngest drivers aged 17-19 only 8% of accidents were caused by exceeding the posted speed limit.

May I please see the source for this claim?

Fifth time.

[Ilovejapcrap]

OTBC said:

turbobloke said:

The report also showed that even among the youngest drivers aged 17-19 only 8% of accidents were caused by exceeding the posted speed limit.

May I please see the source for this claim?

Fifth time.

You've asked four times before this clearly you can't see the source. Only 23% of sources are ever seen . . . FACT

[OTBC]

Each time I've asked I'm told "It's in the report", but nobody can link to the report or even name it.

This is complete nonsense, that 2% figure (it actually says 5%) is the single-most common myth trotted out by those who oppose speeding enforcement. When challenged, the people who repeat the myth show the same evasion and dishonesty displayed by turbo bloke. It's been going on for ten years and it's tedious and dishonest.

[turbobloke]

Yes they can, not that it changes anything.

Got it. A bit of online searching and bingo!

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2007/0709-com...

Heavens above it also says what I said it said, and there's no mention of TRL 323 or TRL 421.

Report table on contributory factor by age in road traffic accidents said:

Exceeded the speed limit:

Age 17-19
8%

Age 26+
2%

discussing the report in an earlier post at a reasonable level of recollection I said:

The report also showed that even among the youngest drivers aged 17-19 only 8% of accidents were caused by exceeding the posted speed limit. The figure for exceeding the posted speed limit drops to 6% for drivers aged 17-25 and just 2% for drivers above 25. Given that fatacs are only ~1% of all accidents, costly action based on marginal violation of speed limits is no more than pissing in the wind.

Beyond that, using actual numbers not rounded percentages I had a weighted average by age producing (from memory) an overall % as 2 point something. In another year it came to 3 point something. Tiny percentages...not a priority.

Who could possibly have thought it, my memory is better than previously thought.

The confusion elsewhere does look like mixing up excessive speed for the conditions, which is nothing to do with a speed limit, with exceeding the speed limit, which has little to do with safety.

[turbobloke]

Ilovejapcrap said:

OTBC said:

turbobloke said:

The report also showed that even among the youngest drivers aged 17-19 only 8% of accidents were caused by exceeding the posted speed limit.

May I please see the source for this claim?

Fifth time.

You've asked four times before this clearly you can't see the source. Only 23% of sources are ever seen . . . FACT

I'm lovin' it.

But it's time for so the love can wait