3 points - £100 - Harsh Acceleration

[MarshPhantom]

55palfers said:

Plod need to spend some time in central London during the summer and check out the harsh acceleration scene there

Police in London have more important things to worry about.

[OTBC]

turbobloke said:

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.

Yep, that's the one. No other report, anywhere, reaches the same conclusions because the report is NOT a study of crash causation, it's a study of collecting data. Nor does the report you've quoted say anything like what you claimed.

This is a tired old myth, it's regularly trotted out by morons like the ABD, it's regularly explained that the report doesn't say what idiots think it says. It was even discussed here:

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Almost ten years ago!

But the clincher is your own quote. You claimed:

"147509 accidents"

Google it yourself if you don't believe me. I even posted the Google results earlier. It's complete bks.

[davemac250]

I wonder what your point is?

I have never reported, attended or supervised at an accident where the sole, primary or secondary causation factor was exceeding a posted speed limit.

I have reported/supervised plenty where someone has been going too fast. Both above and below the posted limit.

I've had drivers argue till blue in the face that as they were under the speed limit they were in the right when confronted with a speeding vehicle. Their opinion on both counts.

[fangio]

HantsRat said:

I wasn't there so cannot comment. My only advice would be for the OP to take it to court and then the 2 officers can give their reasons behind their decision to issue a ticket in a statement.

Hasn't stopped you though, has it?
I'm glad I live over 250 miles from you!!!

[OTBC]

davemac250 said:

I wonder what your point is?

I have never reported, attended or supervised at an accident where the sole, primary or secondary causation factor was exceeding a posted speed limit.

I have reported/supervised plenty where someone has been going too fast. Both above and below the posted limit.

I've had drivers argue till blue in the face that as they were under the speed limit they were in the right when confronted with a speeding vehicle. Their opinion on both counts.

My point is explaining that for the last ten years turbo bloke has based his opposition to speed cameras on a report he hasn't understood and has misquoted. Do you think the research, which leaves out the most dangerous drivers aged under 26, is reliable? It's a joke, it's cherry-picking: "If we leave out young drivers and quote a report that was never intended to be a study of crash causation we get a pleasing result!" Unmitigated bilgewater. And your personal anecdotes do not constitute data, they are unverifiable stories that remarkable back up the views of someone like you. By all means have an opinion, but if you base it on a report you plainly haven't read properly and certainly haven't understood then it's apposite to point out you're talking bum gravy.

[davemac250]

You make some astounding leaps of reasoning.

[Martin_M]

MarshPhantom said:

55palfers said:

Plod need to spend some time in central London during the summer and check out the harsh acceleration scene there

Police in London have more important things to worry about.

That may be so but they may soon have no choice:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/shopping-and-consu...

[V8 Fettler]

Martin_M said:

MarshPhantom said:

55palfers said:

Plod need to spend some time in central London during the summer and check out the harsh acceleration scene there

Police in London have more important things to worry about.

That may be so but they may soon have no choice:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/shopping-and-consu...

Existing legislation deals with the "problem", doesn't need yet more legislation

[Acidrop]

HantsRat said:

Because there really is no need to wheel spin off from a green light. It demonstrates incompetence, impatience and aggressiveness which are all charging points for this offence to be met.

If you can't pull away safely maintaining traction on the road you deserve this ticket. If you want to wheel spin off and accelerate as hard as you can then go on a track day but not on the public roads.

What if you have 4wd in a powerful motor and you pull away briskly? Obviously no wheelspin but with a bit of a roar from the exhaust?

[oyster]

turbobloke said:

Those senior officers are barking up the wrong tree if they want to cut fatacs. The total will go up and (mostly) down as it does, regardless of this waste of police time.

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

This is according to the Transport dept no less. The figures were even included in an official report to the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport. The research was based on 147,509 accidents.

DfT also said:

The most commonly recorded contributory factor in reported road accidents in 2013 was “driver failed to look properly” recorded in around 26 per cent of fatal accidents

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.

I've highlighted your use of the word 'caused', as surely this means you're only telling half the story.
Unless you include some statistics for impact from speed into your argument, then it's not complete.

So whilst dropping speed from say 32 to say 27 in a 30 limit may not prevent an accident occuring (because as you say it might be caused by someone not looking), it may well improve the survival chances.

[turbobloke]

oyster said:

I've highlighted your use of the word 'caused', as surely this means you're only telling half the story.

Accidents most often have a multifactorial origin with (hence the name) more than one factor, the point being that when contributory factors are examined the position of exceeding a speed limit is well down the list. It amounts to a few percent, so rather than accusing me of only focusing on half the story, how about a comment on Police Scotland focusing away from more than 90% of the story (report data as cited)?

oyster said:

Unless you include some statistics for impact from speed into your argument, then it's not complete.

Unless I include? The DfT report to the HoC Committee that I cited contained material based on its title and audience, the questions then put to me concerned that report in terms of the numbers in it, and the presence - or rather absence - of TRL 323 and TRL 421. So I replied accordingly. If I had added any other material I would almost certainly have been accused of moving the goalposts or fudging the issue.

oyster said:

So whilst dropping speed from say 32 to say 27 in a 30 limit may not prevent an accident occuring (because as you say it might be caused by someone not looking), it may well improve the survival chances.

Does the pedestrian time their reckless stepping or running off the pavement to make contact with the side of a passing car or do they get hit by the front of it, does their head then hit the A-pillar or the bonnet, does a cyclist's head (helmeted or not) hit the corner of the kerb or a soft grass verge, does the motorcyclist slide along the road in their leathers only to be run over by an HGV, does an ambulance arrive in a timely manner in any of the above. Outcomes at low speed are not so much determined by a few mph in speed but by chance.

[Martin_M]

V8 Fettler said:

Martin_M said:

MarshPhantom said:

55palfers said:

Plod need to spend some time in central London during the summer and check out the harsh acceleration scene there

Police in London have more important things to worry about.

That may be so but they may soon have no choice:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/shopping-and-consu...

Existing legislation deals with the "problem", doesn't need yet more legislation

It doesn't effectively deal with the problem does it?

[herewego]

The government won't authorise doing anything about them for obvious reason.

[V8LM]

oyster said:

[So whilst dropping speed from say 32 to say 27 in a 30 limit may not prevent an accident occuring (because as you say it might be caused by someone not looking), it may well improve the survival chances.

I've an idea. Let's insist there is a man with a red flag who has to walk in-front of the car.

[pinchmeimdreamin]

V8LM said:

I've an idea. Let's insist there is a man with a red flag who has to walk in-front of the car.

Can I be your flag man please ?


Although I may be walking backwards most of the time.

[oyster]

V8LM said:

oyster said:

[So whilst dropping speed from say 32 to say 27 in a 30 limit may not prevent an accident occuring (because as you say it might be caused by someone not looking), it may well improve the survival chances.

I've an idea. Let's insist there is a man with a red flag who has to walk in-front of the car.

Why reply to a coherent, mature statement with an infantile 'straw man' response ?

There's a balance to be struck between progress and safety of course.