Parallels between drink driving and speeding

[Esceptico]

TooMany2cvs said:

OK, so you don't understand what "direct correlation" means.

This is a correlation between speed limits and safe speed. It is an inverse relationship if you want to be precise - higher the number of hazards the lower the safe speed.

You may think otherwise but pretty much all countries have speed limits that basic rule. It is also not exactly rocket science - the higher the number of potential hazards the higher the risk. Going slower increases your ability to spot the hazard and take any necessary action to avoid a crash.

[esxste]

While I agree there are parallels, I think the difference comes down to the way people relate to the issue.

The drink driving campaign has been successful because people know how alcohol affects them, and with the link firmly placed in their head between them being in a state on a night out and pictures of horrific car crashes.

Speeding being dangerous is harder to push. As someone already mentioned... when someone says "speeding" the mind immediately jumps to excessive speeds like 75 in a 30. They probably think of the boy racer stereotype. They rarely think of themselves, doing a constant 45mph everywhere.

[TooMany2cvs]

Esceptico said:

TooMany2cvs said:

OK, so you don't understand what "direct correlation" means.

This is a correlation between speed limits and safe speed. It is an inverse relationship if you want to be precise - higher the number of hazards the lower the safe speed.

You talk about a correlation between limits and safe speeds, then you go on to explain the relationship between hazards and safe speeds.

I'm talking about there being a direct correlation between limits and safe speeds. It does not exist. There are MANY 30mph limit roads which have a safe speed FAR higher than many 60mph limit roads.

[cmaguire]

RobinOakapple said:

I don't see how I can answer that question without repeating myself. It would seem that your position on speed limits is at odds with the general view, and that's why you are asking questions about them that don't seem to make sense.

What is the 'general view' you refer to, and who holds that view?

[singlecoil]

TooMany2cvs said:

Esceptico said:

TooMany2cvs said:

OK, so you don't understand what "direct correlation" means.

This is a correlation between speed limits and safe speed. It is an inverse relationship if you want to be precise - higher the number of hazards the lower the safe speed.

You talk about a correlation between limits and safe speeds, then you go on to explain the relationship between hazards and safe speeds.

I'm talking about there being a direct correlation between limits and safe speeds. It does not exist. There are MANY 30mph limit roads which have a safe speed FAR higher than many 60mph limit roads.

Your point fails because there is no such thing as a safe speed.

[RobinOakapple]

cmaguire said:

RobinOakapple said:

I don't see how I can answer that question without repeating myself. It would seem that your position on speed limits is at odds with the general view, and that's why you are asking questions about them that don't seem to make sense.

What is the 'general view' you refer to, and who holds that view?

Tell you what, why don't you tell me what you think it is and I'll tell you if you are right or not. Quicker than me having to explain basic stuff to you.

[TooMany2cvs]

RobinOakapple said:

cmaguire said:

RobinOakapple said:

I don't see how I can answer that question without repeating myself. It would seem that your position on speed limits is at odds with the general view, and that's why you are asking questions about them that don't seem to make sense.

What is the 'general view' you refer to, and who holds that view?

Tell you what, why don't you tell me what you think it is and I'll tell you if you are right or not. Quicker than me having to explain basic stuff to you.

Oooh, I know!

The "general view", which is obviously the only correct view, is defined by your opinion.

[cmaguire]

RobinOakapple said:

Tell you what, why don't you tell me what you think it is and I'll tell you if you are right or not. Quicker than me having to explain basic stuff to you.

There is no 'general view' as that would infer that it is held by the majority. And subsequently arbitrarily ignored by the same when it suits if reality is the measure.
There may be a 'general view' in existence regarding urban 30 limits (I believe so) but there most certainly is no such view regarding speed limits as a whole. The hypocrisy is difficult to ignore where speed limits are concerned.

[Esceptico]

TooMany2cvs said:

Esceptico said:

TooMany2cvs said:

OK, so you don't understand what "direct correlation" means.

This is a correlation between speed limits and safe speed. It is an inverse relationship if you want to be precise - higher the number of hazards the lower the safe speed.

You talk about a correlation between limits and safe speeds, then you go on to explain the relationship between hazards and safe speeds.

I'm talking about there being a direct correlation between limits and safe speeds. It does not exist. There are MANY 30mph limit roads which have a safe speed FAR higher than many 60mph limit roads.

You asked me whether I knew what correlation meant but from what you have written it seems you don't know yourself.

Correlation means a relationship between two variables. In this case if for a particular type of road you plotted on the X axis the different possible speeds and on the y axis the accident rate then there would be a positive relationship / correlation: as speed increases the number of accidents and/or severity of accidents increases. The reason for that relationship is clear because the faster you travel the less time you have to react to hazards, the more difficult it is to take evasive action or stop and the greater the kinetic energy (and hence destructive capability) if you do crash. However, the strength of that correlation and the gradient of the line of best fit (if you can plot a linear line) will not be the same for all road types. Urban roads would show much higher casualty rates at 30 mph than a dual carriageway at 30. Similarly the increase in casualties going from 30 to 40 for urban roads will be much higher than a jump from 30 to 40 on a dual carriageway. Again the reason is fairly obvious. In general accidents are not accidents. They are driving errors because drivers have failed to identify and react to potential hazards. The higher the number of hazards the greater the number of accidents, all else being equal (most important of those being speed). So urban roads with lots of hazards are more dangerous. To keep the expected accident rate within acceptable limits traffic should be made to travel more slowly and hence lower speed limits.

All the above is based on what happens with a large sample of roads, large number of drivers and traffic levels. Pointing out that there are some stretches of road with a 30 limit would be safer with a 60 limit than some roads with a 60 limit proves absolutely nothing. On average men are taller than women. Pointing out that your aunt Cybil is taller than your uncle Fred does not disprove that relationship.

[TooMany2cvs]

Esceptico said:

You asked me whether I knew what correlation meant but from what you have written it seems you don't know yourself.

Correlation means a relationship between two variables.

Correct, it does.

And there is no direct relationship between the speed limit and a safe, appropriate speed.

Esceptico said:

In this case if for a particular type of road

There y'go, already... Narrowing it down to fit your argument, when I'm talking about all types of roads.

Esceptico said:

Pointing out that there are some stretches of road with a 30 limit would be safer with a 60 limit than some roads with a 60 limit proves absolutely nothing.

That's not quite what I said, though, is it?

I said there are many roads with 30 limits, on which it is safer to go faster than it is on many roads with 60 limits. We're agreed on that, right?

And that proves that this direct relationship simply does not exist. You cannot look at a speed limit for any given road and predict, from that and that alone, what speed would be safe.

[RobinOakapple]

cmaguire said:

RobinOakapple said:

Tell you what, why don't you tell me what you think it is and I'll tell you if you are right or not. Quicker than me having to explain basic stuff to you.

There is no 'general view' as that would infer that it is held by the majority. And subsequently arbitrarily ignored by the same when it suits if reality is the measure.
There may be a 'general view' in existence regarding urban 30 limits (I believe so) but there most certainly is no such view regarding speed limits as a whole. The hypocrisy is difficult to ignore where speed limits are concerned.

Imply, not infer.

The general view is the view that is held by the majority.

[TooMany2cvs]

RobinOakapple said:

The general view is the view that is held by the majority.

I must've missed that referendum. Do you have a link to the results?

[singlecoil]

TooMany2cvs said:

RobinOakapple said:

The general view is the view that is held by the majority.

I must've missed that referendum. Do you have a link to the results?

Do you have any links to the surveys that support your views?

[TooMany2cvs]

singlecoil said:

TooMany2cvs said:

RobinOakapple said:

The general view is the view that is held by the majority.

I must've missed that referendum. Do you have a link to the results?

Do you have any links to the surveys that support your views?

I'm not claiming my views are anything other than my views, let alone those of a majority of the population.

Frankly, I'd double-check if the majority of the population told me what day of the week it was, because a majority of the population are uninformed halfwits.

[Red Devil]

Part of the problem is the seemingly arbitrary way many limits are set nowadays. Much of this is down to the DfT permitting local highway authorities a much greater degree of freedom in setting them than existed in the past.

Here is an example taken at random where the relative legal maximum speeds make no logical sense at all - https://goo.gl/maps/N1841XBQzdK2 - similar examples can be found all over the UK.

[singlecoil]

Red Devil said:

Part of the problem is the seemingly arbitrary way many limits are set nowadays. Much of this is down to the DfT permitting local highway authorities a much greater degree of freedom in setting them than existed in the past.

Here is an example taken at random where the relative legal maximum speeds make no logical sense at all - https://goo.gl/maps/N1841XBQzdK2 - similar examples can be found all over the UK.

Problem for the people who want to go faster I guess, not for others though (unless you are referring to limits that you believe are too high). I suppose the 'seemingly' means you don't know why that limit was chosen rather than you being sure it's entirely arbitrary?

[TooMany2cvs]

singlecoil said:

I suppose the 'seemingly' means you don't know why that limit was chosen rather than you being sure it's entirely arbitrary?

We know why and when all the national default limits were chosen, if that's of any help.

The 30mph urban limit was introduced in 1934. after a four-year experiment with no limits resulted in higher casualties - the limit was 20mph before 1930.
The 70mph NSL was introduced in 1965, after bad collisions in fog on the then-new motorways, and reduced to 60 for single carriageways in 1977 when the 1973 energy crisis's temporary blanket 50mph limits were removed.

But, apart from those...

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Tuesday 10th May 15:13

[TwigtheWonderkid]

singlecoil said:

Your point fails because there is no such thing as a safe speed.

Just acceptable levels of danger.

[Esceptico]

TooMany2cvs said:

Esceptico said:

You asked me whether I knew what correlation meant but from what you have written it seems you don't know yourself.

Correlation means a relationship between two variables.

Correct, it does.

And there is no direct relationship between the speed limit and a safe, appropriate speed.

Esceptico said:

In this case if for a particular type of road

There y'go, already... Narrowing it down to fit your argument, when I'm talking about all types of roads.

Esceptico said:

Pointing out that there are some stretches of road with a 30 limit would be safer with a 60 limit than some roads with a 60 limit proves absolutely nothing.

That's not quite what I said, though, is it?

I said there are many roads with 30 limits, on which it is safer to go faster than it is on many roads with 60 limits. We're agreed on that, right?

And that proves that this direct relationship simply does not exist. You cannot look at a speed limit for any given road and predict, from that and that alone, what speed would be safe.

Are you Mr Moose's twin? You seem to have the same inability to understand English or perhaps the same predilection for being obtuse. You keep stating that there is no direct correlation with your only support being a pointless comment about it being "safer" to drive at 60 in some roads with 30 limits than in some 60 limits. Perhaps if you could explain what that is supposed to signify we might understand the point you are trying to make (if you even have one).

[singlecoil]

TooMany2cvs said:

singlecoil said:

I suppose the 'seemingly' means you don't know why that limit was chosen rather than you being sure it's entirely arbitrary?

We know why and when all the national default limits were chosen, if that's of any help.

So you've gone from your views being yours alone to 'we'.