Parallels between drink driving and speeding
Discussion
Esceptico said:
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).
That's three of us who are waiting for him to actually make a point...Still waiting...
Edited by singlecoil on Tuesday 10th May 16:05
singlecoil said:
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.
singlecoil said:
singlecoil said:
Esceptico said:
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).
That's three of us who are waiting for him to actually make a point...
TooMany2cvs said:
Perhaps if you read what I actually wrote, instead of what you think I wrote, you might start to understand the point.
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.I've copied what you wrote above.
You say there is no direct correlation between limits and safe speed. You keep writing the same thing. You have neither explained what you mean nor provided an argument nor any evidence to support what you wrote.
You say that there are MANY limit roads which have a safe speed FAR higher than many 60 mph limit roads. What do you mean by safe speed? What do you men's by far higher? What evidence do you have to support such a statement - or even a reasonable argument that could make such a statement believable? One general rule in science and life is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You are claiming that there is no link between speed limits and the safe speed for those roads - either back those claims up or please be quiet.
Esceptico said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Perhaps if you read what I actually wrote, instead of what you think I wrote, you might start to understand the point.
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.I've copied what you wrote above.
You say there is no direct correlation between limits and safe speed. You keep writing the same thing. You have neither explained what you mean nor provided an argument nor any evidence to support what you wrote.
Esceptico said:
You say that there are MANY 30mph limit roads which have a safe speed FAR higher than many 60 mph limit roads. What do you mean by safe speed? What do you men's by far higher? What evidence do you have to support such a statement - or even a reasonable argument that could make such a statement believable?
I'm, frankly, amazed that you should even think it unbelievable. I guess you don't often leave town?On the one hand, we are - surely - all in agreement that there are plenty of roads with 30mph limits that make very little sense - even wide dual carriageways, with excellent sightlines and few hazards. Right?
On the other hand, the lane past my gate has grass up the middle. It's getting rapidly to the season where there will be a bin-wagon-shaped-and-sized hole in the shrubbery either side of the road for a few hundred metres. There are bends and crests with - quite literally - next to zero visibility. If you were to turn left out of my gate and go about 25m, just after where the public footpath emerges straight onto the road (and a neighbour recently got the roller he was towing behind his 4x4 utterly wedged - he had to go round and tow it back out from the other side), there is a crest sharp enough that, as you go over it, you can't see the roof of even a van or tractor coming the other way below the tip of your bonnet. Round these parts, this is not exceptional in any way. It's a 60mph limit, of course.
singlecoil said:
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?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.
Also, why build a d/c bypass and then limit it to 50mph? - https://goo.gl/maps/gBkkmBuem492
Red Devil said:
It has nothing to do with wanting to go faster. I'm merely pointing out the illogic in the A road which is wider with better sightlines having a lower limit than both the country lanes leading off it with their sharper bends and high hedges.
Presumably because the country lane carries a LOT less traffic. I know of such lanes where one's speed is restricted by the natural hazards but where there are some straight sections where the NSl allows one to zip past a tractor etc without breaking the limit.Red Devil said:
Also, why build a d/c bypass and then limit it to 50mph? - https://goo.gl/maps/gBkkmBuem492
I'm not privy to the reasoning behind that particular decision though I daresay there is some. Do you think they did it out of devilment, or stupidity? Perhaps they have dice with different speed limits on the faces?TooMany2cvs said:
I'm, frankly, amazed that you should even think it unbelievable. I guess you don't often leave town?
On the one hand, we are - surely - all in agreement that there are plenty of roads with 30mph limits that make very little sense - even wide dual carriageways, with excellent sightlines and few hazards. Right?
On the other hand, the lane past my gate has grass up the middle. It's getting rapidly to the season where there will be a bin-wagon-shaped-and-sized hole in the shrubbery either side of the road for a few hundred metres. There are bends and crests with - quite literally - next to zero visibility. If you were to turn left out of my gate and go about 25m, just after where the public footpath emerges straight onto the road (and a neighbour recently got the roller he was towing behind his 4x4 utterly wedged - he had to go round and tow it back out from the other side), there is a crest sharp enough that, as you go over it, you can't see the roof of even a van or tractor coming the other way below the tip of your bonnet. Round these parts, this is not exceptional in any way. It's a 60mph limit, of course.
Nice anecdote. What is it supposed to prove? On the one hand, we are - surely - all in agreement that there are plenty of roads with 30mph limits that make very little sense - even wide dual carriageways, with excellent sightlines and few hazards. Right?
On the other hand, the lane past my gate has grass up the middle. It's getting rapidly to the season where there will be a bin-wagon-shaped-and-sized hole in the shrubbery either side of the road for a few hundred metres. There are bends and crests with - quite literally - next to zero visibility. If you were to turn left out of my gate and go about 25m, just after where the public footpath emerges straight onto the road (and a neighbour recently got the roller he was towing behind his 4x4 utterly wedged - he had to go round and tow it back out from the other side), there is a crest sharp enough that, as you go over it, you can't see the roof of even a van or tractor coming the other way below the tip of your bonnet. Round these parts, this is not exceptional in any way. It's a 60mph limit, of course.
Esceptico said:
TooMany2cvs said:
I'm, frankly, amazed that you should even think it unbelievable. I guess you don't often leave town?
On the one hand, we are - surely - all in agreement that there are plenty of roads with 30mph limits that make very little sense - even wide dual carriageways, with excellent sightlines and few hazards. Right?
On the other hand, the lane past my gate has grass up the middle. It's getting rapidly to the season where there will be a bin-wagon-shaped-and-sized hole in the shrubbery either side of the road for a few hundred metres. There are bends and crests with - quite literally - next to zero visibility. If you were to turn left out of my gate and go about 25m, just after where the public footpath emerges straight onto the road (and a neighbour recently got the roller he was towing behind his 4x4 utterly wedged - he had to go round and tow it back out from the other side), there is a crest sharp enough that, as you go over it, you can't see the roof of even a van or tractor coming the other way below the tip of your bonnet. Round these parts, this is not exceptional in any way. It's a 60mph limit, of course.
Nice anecdote. What is it supposed to prove? On the one hand, we are - surely - all in agreement that there are plenty of roads with 30mph limits that make very little sense - even wide dual carriageways, with excellent sightlines and few hazards. Right?
On the other hand, the lane past my gate has grass up the middle. It's getting rapidly to the season where there will be a bin-wagon-shaped-and-sized hole in the shrubbery either side of the road for a few hundred metres. There are bends and crests with - quite literally - next to zero visibility. If you were to turn left out of my gate and go about 25m, just after where the public footpath emerges straight onto the road (and a neighbour recently got the roller he was towing behind his 4x4 utterly wedged - he had to go round and tow it back out from the other side), there is a crest sharp enough that, as you go over it, you can't see the roof of even a van or tractor coming the other way below the tip of your bonnet. Round these parts, this is not exceptional in any way. It's a 60mph limit, of course.
Have you been paying NO attention to this thread?
TooMany2cvs said:
That there's no direct correlation between the speed limit on any road and a safe speed for it.
Have you been paying NO attention to this thread?
Is that it? The sum of your argurnents is that there are some minor country roads that have a speed limit of 60 where you can't safely do 60 everywhere? Have you been paying NO attention to this thread?
Yes I have been paying attention and been waiting for a sensible argument from you. Still waiting.
Esceptico said:
TooMany2cvs said:
That there's no direct correlation between the speed limit on any road and a safe speed for it.
Have you been paying NO attention to this thread?
Is that it? The sum of your argurnents is that there are some minor country roads that have a speed limit of 60 where you can't safely do 60 everywhere? Have you been paying NO attention to this thread?
Yes I have been paying attention and been waiting for a sensible argument from you. Still waiting.
Although I found this link at random it is interesting to see that the graphs of speed and risk are pretty much as I described what they would look like in an earlier post. And that risk increases with complexity (ie number of hazards). Not really surprising as it is not rocket science and the only people who don't accept it and those with a vested interest who don't want to accept the truth.
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/wcm/road_safety/erso...
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 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.
Pete317 said:
So what you're saying is, you can safely go much faster if there's one kid running around the street than if there are 20 kids running around?
I can only hope that you live a long way away from me if you thinking about how fast you can go with even one child running around. Personally if I see a child in or near the road I would slow down or take other actions to give me a better chance of reacting in case the child ran into my path. With 20 children I would likely be going a lot less than 30, just in case. Esceptico said:
Pete317 said:
So what you're saying is, you can safely go much faster if there's one kid running around the street than if there are 20 kids running around?
I can only hope that you live a long way away from me if you thinking about how fast you can go with even one child running around. Personally if I see a child in or near the road I would slow down or take other actions to give me a better chance of reacting in case the child ran into my path. With 20 children I would likely be going a lot less than 30, just in case. 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.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff