Parallels between drink driving and speeding
Discussion
Pete317 said:
As you very evidently misconstrued what I wrote, I'll put it another way.
The idea that a 'safe' speed is somehow related to the number of hazards is, quite frankly, nonsensical.
It's hardly as if hazards are lined up like skittles, to be mown down one after the other.
The average driver will, statistically, drive for in the order of 100 years before having an injury accident, an order of magnitude longer than that before a serious injury accident, and two orders of magnitude longer before a fatal one.
With odds like that, it's frankly wishful thinking to imagine a causal link between accidents and speed, or any other parameter of travel for that matter.
We've been over this ground before...The idea that a 'safe' speed is somehow related to the number of hazards is, quite frankly, nonsensical.
It's hardly as if hazards are lined up like skittles, to be mown down one after the other.
The average driver will, statistically, drive for in the order of 100 years before having an injury accident, an order of magnitude longer than that before a serious injury accident, and two orders of magnitude longer before a fatal one.
With odds like that, it's frankly wishful thinking to imagine a causal link between accidents and speed, or any other parameter of travel for that matter.
Those who are, broadly speaking, against speed cameras, and/or against speed limits that they consider to be set too low, maybe even against speed limits, will often point to statistics which show that excessive speed is rarely a contributing factor to the cause of accidents. Which ignores (how convenient) the easily provable facts that a) accidents that happen at lower speeds are less serious than those that happen at higher speeds, and b) that lower speeds provide more chance for avoiding accidents altogether.
These are the two points that people in the camp referred to above need to overcome if they are to have any chance of bringing about changes. Ignoring those points won't make them go away.
singlecoil said:
Pete317 said:
As you very evidently misconstrued what I wrote, I'll put it another way.
The idea that a 'safe' speed is somehow related to the number of hazards is, quite frankly, nonsensical.
It's hardly as if hazards are lined up like skittles, to be mown down one after the other.
The average driver will, statistically, drive for in the order of 100 years before having an injury accident, an order of magnitude longer than that before a serious injury accident, and two orders of magnitude longer before a fatal one.
With odds like that, it's frankly wishful thinking to imagine a causal link between accidents and speed, or any other parameter of travel for that matter.
We've been over this ground before...The idea that a 'safe' speed is somehow related to the number of hazards is, quite frankly, nonsensical.
It's hardly as if hazards are lined up like skittles, to be mown down one after the other.
The average driver will, statistically, drive for in the order of 100 years before having an injury accident, an order of magnitude longer than that before a serious injury accident, and two orders of magnitude longer before a fatal one.
With odds like that, it's frankly wishful thinking to imagine a causal link between accidents and speed, or any other parameter of travel for that matter.
Those who are, broadly speaking, against speed cameras, and/or against speed limits that they consider to be set too low, maybe even against speed limits, will often point to statistics which show that excessive speed is rarely a contributing factor to the cause of accidents. Which ignores (how convenient) the easily provable facts that a) accidents that happen at lower speeds are less serious than those that happen at higher speeds, and b) that lower speeds provide more chance for avoiding accidents altogether.
These are the two points that people in the camp referred to above need to overcome if they are to have any chance of bringing about changes. Ignoring those points won't make them go away.
But to answer your points:
a) You will see, statistically speaking, a greater number of serious accidents with higher speeds than with lower speeds, after you've properly controlled for other factors, but, given the very low probability of serious accidents, it would be very difficult to distinguish any correlations from the noise.
b) Explain how that happens again.
Pete317 said:
Firstly, Let's just cut the crap about camps, motives etc, and instead concentrate on the salient bits.
But to answer your points:
a) You will see, statistically speaking, a greater number of serious accidents with higher speeds than with lower speeds, after you've properly controlled for other factors, but, given the very low probability of serious accidents, it would be very difficult to distinguish any correlations from the noise.
b) Explain how that happens again.
If I have a main point, and I do, it's that you are not going to get any changes with that level of argument. Ignoring or sidestepping my points might be fun, and make you feel you are getting somewhere, but it's not me you need to convince, and if it was, you have failed.But to answer your points:
a) You will see, statistically speaking, a greater number of serious accidents with higher speeds than with lower speeds, after you've properly controlled for other factors, but, given the very low probability of serious accidents, it would be very difficult to distinguish any correlations from the noise.
b) Explain how that happens again.
OP,
I've not read the thread, but there is a fund emanate difference between speeding and drink driving.
Speed is dangerous. Let's agree that straight out, however, speed is only dangerous when the speed in question is inappropriate for the situation.
Drink driving is dangerous. It's dangerous in every situation. There is no way a drunk bloke can accurately assess risk to decide speed.
The difference is that speed limits are arbitrary. The upper limit doesn't define the safe speed. E.g a 60 limit - can you take every corner on an NSL at 60? Sting Blomqvist couldn't. The limit is implied by the reaction time / braking distance implied.
Now take drink driving - the "safe limit" is the start of when your driving becomes impaired though delayed reactions and inferior judgement. It's near constant.
Tl:dr? Speed is sometimes appropriate but illegal. Drink driving is a
s trick.
I've not read the thread, but there is a fund emanate difference between speeding and drink driving.
Speed is dangerous. Let's agree that straight out, however, speed is only dangerous when the speed in question is inappropriate for the situation.
Drink driving is dangerous. It's dangerous in every situation. There is no way a drunk bloke can accurately assess risk to decide speed.
The difference is that speed limits are arbitrary. The upper limit doesn't define the safe speed. E.g a 60 limit - can you take every corner on an NSL at 60? Sting Blomqvist couldn't. The limit is implied by the reaction time / braking distance implied.
Now take drink driving - the "safe limit" is the start of when your driving becomes impaired though delayed reactions and inferior judgement. It's near constant.
Tl:dr? Speed is sometimes appropriate but illegal. Drink driving is a
s trick.singlecoil said:
Pete317 said:
Firstly, Let's just cut the crap about camps, motives etc, and instead concentrate on the salient bits.
But to answer your points:
a) You will see, statistically speaking, a greater number of serious accidents with higher speeds than with lower speeds, after you've properly controlled for other factors, but, given the very low probability of serious accidents, it would be very difficult to distinguish any correlations from the noise.
b) Explain how that happens again.
If I have a main point, and I do, it's that you are not going to get any changes with that level of argument. Ignoring or sidestepping my points might be fun, and make you feel you are getting somewhere, but it's not me you need to convince, and if it was, you have failed.But to answer your points:
a) You will see, statistically speaking, a greater number of serious accidents with higher speeds than with lower speeds, after you've properly controlled for other factors, but, given the very low probability of serious accidents, it would be very difficult to distinguish any correlations from the noise.
b) Explain how that happens again.
I answered your first point and asked for an explanation of your second one.
Pete317 said:
As you very evidently misconstrued what I wrote, I'll put it another way.
The idea that a 'safe' speed is somehow related to the number of hazards is, quite frankly, nonsensical.
It's hardly as if hazards are lined up like skittles, to be mown down one after the other.
The average driver will, statistically, drive for in the order of 100 years before having an injury accident, an order of magnitude longer than that before a serious injury accident, and two orders of magnitude longer before a fatal one.
With odds like that, it's frankly wishful thinking to imagine a causal link between accidents and speed, or any other parameter of travel for that matter.
On the one hand there is your unsubstantiated "argument" and on the other there is a wealth of accident statistics that show a relationship between risk of accidents and speed, hazards, alcohol consumption. The idea that a 'safe' speed is somehow related to the number of hazards is, quite frankly, nonsensical.
It's hardly as if hazards are lined up like skittles, to be mown down one after the other.
The average driver will, statistically, drive for in the order of 100 years before having an injury accident, an order of magnitude longer than that before a serious injury accident, and two orders of magnitude longer before a fatal one.
With odds like that, it's frankly wishful thinking to imagine a causal link between accidents and speed, or any other parameter of travel for that matter.
Your argument flies in the face of both common sense and most people's own experience. Your comments about the likelihood of an accident also strikes me as odd given that I personally know a number of people that have been killed or injured in RTAs (as drivers, riders and pedestrians). It only happens to a minority but a significant minority.
Anyway, as you are obviously not basing your opinion on evidence it's worthless trying to debate the issue with you.
MarshPhantom said:
Agreed, but it's been a very long time since I was drunk after 2 pints. Regarding DD being rigorously enforced, I've been driving lot of miles at all hours for over 25 years and never been tested.
Unless you drove any of those miles while over the limit I'd think testing you would have been pointless.0000 said:
MarshPhantom said:
Agreed, but it's been a very long time since I was drunk after 2 pints. Regarding DD being rigorously enforced, I've been driving lot of miles at all hours for over 25 years and never been tested.
Unless you drove any of those miles while over the limit I'd think testing you would have been pointless.^that it may be. But the limit is not "2 pints". It's a blood alcohol limit.
My mate Graeme at school had a brother that decided to drive after a few. He killed a bloke crossing the road on a zebra, who went though the screen and killed his girlfriend in the passenger seat. He wasn't speeding at the time, just pissed. I don't know how pissed he was, just that he was over the limit.
His actions tore that family apart, the mother blamed the dad for buying the lad a car, Graeme (who wirshipped his brother) went from being really confident to being a shadow of his former self. It was a complete cluster funk. In all, 3 families were really impacted by that call to drive home from the pub - in effect they all lost a family member.
Sure, you've never been drunk after 2 pints. Can you confidently say your observation / reactions were never impaired?
My mate Graeme at school had a brother that decided to drive after a few. He killed a bloke crossing the road on a zebra, who went though the screen and killed his girlfriend in the passenger seat. He wasn't speeding at the time, just pissed. I don't know how pissed he was, just that he was over the limit.
His actions tore that family apart, the mother blamed the dad for buying the lad a car, Graeme (who wirshipped his brother) went from being really confident to being a shadow of his former self. It was a complete cluster funk. In all, 3 families were really impacted by that call to drive home from the pub - in effect they all lost a family member.
Sure, you've never been drunk after 2 pints. Can you confidently say your observation / reactions were never impaired?
Esceptico said:
Pete317 said:
As you very evidently misconstrued what I wrote, I'll put it another way.
The idea that a 'safe' speed is somehow related to the number of hazards is, quite frankly, nonsensical.
It's hardly as if hazards are lined up like skittles, to be mown down one after the other.
The average driver will, statistically, drive for in the order of 100 years before having an injury accident, an order of magnitude longer than that before a serious injury accident, and two orders of magnitude longer before a fatal one.
With odds like that, it's frankly wishful thinking to imagine a causal link between accidents and speed, or any other parameter of travel for that matter.
On the one hand there is your unsubstantiated "argument" and on the other there is a wealth of accident statistics that show a relationship between risk of accidents and speed, hazards, alcohol consumption. The idea that a 'safe' speed is somehow related to the number of hazards is, quite frankly, nonsensical.
It's hardly as if hazards are lined up like skittles, to be mown down one after the other.
The average driver will, statistically, drive for in the order of 100 years before having an injury accident, an order of magnitude longer than that before a serious injury accident, and two orders of magnitude longer before a fatal one.
With odds like that, it's frankly wishful thinking to imagine a causal link between accidents and speed, or any other parameter of travel for that matter.
Your argument flies in the face of both common sense and most people's own experience. Your comments about the likelihood of an accident also strikes me as odd given that I personally know a number of people that have been killed or injured in RTAs (as drivers, riders and pedestrians). It only happens to a minority but a significant minority.
Anyway, as you are obviously not basing your opinion on evidence it's worthless trying to debate the issue with you.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Report said:
• The 1,775 road deaths in 2014 is the third lowest annual total on record after 2012 and 2013.
There were 45 per cent fewer fatalities in 2014 than a decade earlier in 2005.
• Pedestrians accounted for three quarters of the increase in fatalities between 2013 and 2014.
Pedestrian fatalities increased by 12 per cent from 398 in 2013 to 446 in 2014.
• The number of people seriously injured in reported road traffic accidents increased by 5 per
cent to 22,807 in 2014, compared with 2013.
• There was a total of 194,477 casualties of all severities in reported road traffic accidents
during 2014, the first increase in overall casualties since 1997.
• A total of 146,322 personal-injury road traffic accidents were reported to the police in 2014.
Of these accidents, 1,658 resulted in at least one fatality.
Now tell me again how my arguments are unsubstantiated opinion.
And I'd be happy to discuss any of the research you've been looking at.
Pete317 said:
singlecoil said:
Pete317 said:
Firstly, Let's just cut the crap about camps, motives etc, and instead concentrate on the salient bits.
But to answer your points:
a) You will see, statistically speaking, a greater number of serious accidents with higher speeds than with lower speeds, after you've properly controlled for other factors, but, given the very low probability of serious accidents, it would be very difficult to distinguish any correlations from the noise.
b) Explain how that happens again.
If I have a main point, and I do, it's that you are not going to get any changes with that level of argument. Ignoring or sidestepping my points might be fun, and make you feel you are getting somewhere, but it's not me you need to convince, and if it was, you have failed.But to answer your points:
a) You will see, statistically speaking, a greater number of serious accidents with higher speeds than with lower speeds, after you've properly controlled for other factors, but, given the very low probability of serious accidents, it would be very difficult to distinguish any correlations from the noise.
b) Explain how that happens again.
I answered your first point and asked for an explanation of your second one.
I've nothing further to say to you on this particular point.
Pete317 said:
There are 30 million drivers in the UK - you do the arithmetic.
Now tell me again how my arguments are unsubstantiated opinion.
And I'd be happy to discuss any of the research you've been looking at.
This link that I posted earlier contains references to a number of studies showing a link between accident risk and speed, accident risk and complexity (basically number of hazards) and finally a comparison of accident risk for drink driving and speed. Now tell me again how my arguments are unsubstantiated opinion.
And I'd be happy to discuss any of the research you've been looking at.
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/wcm/road_safety/erso...
Esceptico said:
Pete317 said:
There are 30 million drivers in the UK - you do the arithmetic.
Now tell me again how my arguments are unsubstantiated opinion.
And I'd be happy to discuss any of the research you've been looking at.
This link that I posted earlier contains references to a number of studies showing a link between accident risk and speed, accident risk and complexity (basically number of hazards) and finally a comparison of accident risk for drink driving and speed. Now tell me again how my arguments are unsubstantiated opinion.
And I'd be happy to discuss any of the research you've been looking at.
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/wcm/road_safety/erso...
singlecoil said:
Pete317 said:
singlecoil said:
Pete317 said:
Firstly, Let's just cut the crap about camps, motives etc, and instead concentrate on the salient bits.
But to answer your points:
a) You will see, statistically speaking, a greater number of serious accidents with higher speeds than with lower speeds, after you've properly controlled for other factors, but, given the very low probability of serious accidents, it would be very difficult to distinguish any correlations from the noise.
b) Explain how that happens again.
If I have a main point, and I do, it's that you are not going to get any changes with that level of argument. Ignoring or sidestepping my points might be fun, and make you feel you are getting somewhere, but it's not me you need to convince, and if it was, you have failed.But to answer your points:
a) You will see, statistically speaking, a greater number of serious accidents with higher speeds than with lower speeds, after you've properly controlled for other factors, but, given the very low probability of serious accidents, it would be very difficult to distinguish any correlations from the noise.
b) Explain how that happens again.
I answered your first point and asked for an explanation of your second one.
I've nothing further to say to you on this particular point.
2) You're right, your second point cannot be made simpler - or more wrong. It's like saying that you have less time to wait for the train if you run to the tube station instead of walking.
3) You know nothing about what I'm thinking, where I want to go or what I want to see.
4) It's been nice talking to you too
singlecoil said:
We've been over this ground before...
Those who are, broadly speaking, against speed cameras, and/or against speed limits that they consider to be set too low, maybe even against speed limits, will often point to statistics which show that excessive speed is rarely a contributing factor to the cause of accidents. Which ignores (how convenient) the easily provable facts that a) accidents that happen at lower speeds are less serious than those that happen at higher speeds, and b) that lower speeds provide more chance for avoiding accidents altogether.
These are the two points that people in the camp referred to above need to overcome if they are to have any chance of bringing about changes. Ignoring those points won't make them go away.
Been over this ground before, yep, I can attest to that Those who are, broadly speaking, against speed cameras, and/or against speed limits that they consider to be set too low, maybe even against speed limits, will often point to statistics which show that excessive speed is rarely a contributing factor to the cause of accidents. Which ignores (how convenient) the easily provable facts that a) accidents that happen at lower speeds are less serious than those that happen at higher speeds, and b) that lower speeds provide more chance for avoiding accidents altogether.
These are the two points that people in the camp referred to above need to overcome if they are to have any chance of bringing about changes. Ignoring those points won't make them go away.
I bet you don't get any serious answer to those two points from any of the whingers (some of them will even pretend not to understand them I expect, which they think is better than admitting they don't have any answers).
snorky782 said:
Speeding is starting head down the same route. There are several roads I have to use, where the majority of drivers drive at dead on 30mph all the time. They also get very, very angry if you dare to overtake them.
Esceptico said:
Spot on. The picture painted on PH of the average speeder is someone fully in control and knowing where and when it is safe to speed. That may apply to some but isn't my experience. It is not surprising if you consider why people might speed. Some or all the following probably apply:
- a liking for risk and risk taking activities because of the buzz it provides
- impatience
- aggressiveness
- lack of consideration for others
- willingness to break rules
Impatience, aggressiveness, willingness to break rules, lack of consideration for others - all traits which apply to drivers who have to put up with the speed camera cancer and 'for profit' reduced limits and camera placements. We could add in numerous "willingness to break rules" examples for those involved with the speed camera industry, too. It's an evergrowing list in fact.- a liking for risk and risk taking activities because of the buzz it provides
- impatience
- aggressiveness
- lack of consideration for others
- willingness to break rules
One of the reasons HGV speeds were increased was due to frustration and risk-taking, yet drivers have to regularly put up with areas of road you can land planes on with laughable limits. Many people only become "speeders" due to numbers on a stick changing and the reason for those changes are often suspect. Before this happened, they were most likely patient, non-aggressive, considerate and more focused..the types of drivers you so obviously love. Many of the drivers haven't changed. That's a whole lot different to getting smashed in a pub and jumping into a car.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff