Am I missing something?

[Mill Wheel]

singlecoil said:

Mill Wheel said:

In theory, you would expect collisions and injuries - but you have fallen into the trap of IMPOSING a set of conditions into your theory, that in practice would NOT occur, if each individual were left to decide upon their own course and speed... in which case it would probably work out more like this:
https://youtu.be/GErEbUXCpiM
How many collisions do you count there?

How many people did you see driving quickly in that video?

Your humorous example has worked against you.

Not at all. The clip just shows that left to their own devices, most drivers adopt the best course and speed including halting even when not instructed to do so by a red light to avoid collisions, whereas Tapereel was relying on imposing speeds and conditions to make his point.

Presumably at the junction, speeds might be slightly higher as traffic volumes reduced at quiet times of the day or night... but they will always rely on the judgement of the driver and his/her sense of self preservation.

[tapereel]

Mill Wheel said:

singlecoil said:

Mill Wheel said:

In theory, you would expect collisions and injuries - but you have fallen into the trap of IMPOSING a set of conditions into your theory, that in practice would NOT occur, if each individual were left to decide upon their own course and speed... in which case it would probably work out more like this:
https://youtu.be/GErEbUXCpiM
How many collisions do you count there?

How many people did you see driving quickly in that video?

Your humorous example has worked against you.

Not at all. The clip just shows that left to their own devices, most drivers adopt the best course and speed including halting even when not instructed to do so by a red light to avoid collisions, whereas Tapereel was relying on imposing speeds and conditions to make his point.

Presumably at the junction, speeds might be slightly higher as traffic volumes reduced at quiet times of the day or night... but they will always rely on the judgement of the driver and his/her sense of self preservation.

they do just that, quite right. When necessary to avoid collisions the best course is an avoiding course and to achieve that speed is chosen appropriately. The most appropriate speed to give time to assess and adopt will be the speed that gives the driver time to assess and adopt it; that time-giving adjustment won't be a high speed which is my point because increasing speed shortens the thinking time.
You don't need to look too much further in YouTube to be able to post an illustration of that...probably from the same junction.

[singlecoil]

tapereel said:

Mill Wheel said:

singlecoil said:

Mill Wheel said:

In theory, you would expect collisions and injuries - but you have fallen into the trap of IMPOSING a set of conditions into your theory, that in practice would NOT occur, if each individual were left to decide upon their own course and speed... in which case it would probably work out more like this:
https://youtu.be/GErEbUXCpiM
How many collisions do you count there?

How many people did you see driving quickly in that video?

Your humorous example has worked against you.

Not at all. The clip just shows that left to their own devices, most drivers adopt the best course and speed including halting even when not instructed to do so by a red light to avoid collisions, whereas Tapereel was relying on imposing speeds and conditions to make his point.

Presumably at the junction, speeds might be slightly higher as traffic volumes reduced at quiet times of the day or night... but they will always rely on the judgement of the driver and his/her sense of self preservation.

they do just that, quite right. When necessary to avoid collisions the best course is an avoiding course and to achieve that speed is chosen appropriately. The most appropriate speed to give time to assess and adopt will be the speed that gives the driver time to assess and adopt it; that time-giving adjustment won't be a high speed which is my point because increasing speed shortens the thinking time.
You don't need to look too much further in YouTube to be able to post an illustration of that...probably from the same junction.

Indeed. Posting that clip was a fail (in this context).

[tapereel]

singlecoil said:

tapereel said:

Mill Wheel said:

singlecoil said:

Mill Wheel said:

In theory, you would expect collisions and injuries - but you have fallen into the trap of IMPOSING a set of conditions into your theory, that in practice would NOT occur, if each individual were left to decide upon their own course and speed... in which case it would probably work out more like this:
https://youtu.be/GErEbUXCpiM
How many collisions do you count there?

How many people did you see driving quickly in that video?

Your humorous example has worked against you.

Not at all. The clip just shows that left to their own devices, most drivers adopt the best course and speed including halting even when not instructed to do so by a red light to avoid collisions, whereas Tapereel was relying on imposing speeds and conditions to make his point.

Presumably at the junction, speeds might be slightly higher as traffic volumes reduced at quiet times of the day or night... but they will always rely on the judgement of the driver and his/her sense of self preservation.

they do just that, quite right. When necessary to avoid collisions the best course is an avoiding course and to achieve that speed is chosen appropriately. The most appropriate speed to give time to assess and adopt will be the speed that gives the driver time to assess and adopt it; that time-giving adjustment won't be a high speed which is my point because increasing speed shortens the thinking time.
You don't need to look too much further in YouTube to be able to post an illustration of that...probably from the same junction.

Indeed. Posting that clip was a fail (in this context).

Maybe he has found a breakthrough for UK junction safety. I will inform DfT straight away and see if we can use the far-east who gives a flying-f*ck junction model here. It will save a fortune in traffic signals...oh and we can quickly approach the same safety record as out far-east friends. Winner.

[Pete317]

Esceptico said:

Thanks for the link to the Norwegian report but why link to something that provides conclusive evidence to demolish your our arguments? I admit I only read the summary of the report to see the conclusions rather than all 148 pages but it says that a meta analysis of around 170 odd other studies showed clear evidence for the correlation of speed with accident rates, that the strength of relationship and consistency over so many studies indicated that the relationship was almost definitely causal and that the power model was supported (with some modfications). Some limitations of the studies were noted but not sufficient to overturn confidence in the conclusions of the study. What exactly is your argument then that speed and accident rate are not related?

I don't think it does anything of the kind.
Just like all the other studies on the subject, he fails to describe a mechanism which can adequately explain relationship between speed and accident risk which he reports.
In section 3.1, he attempts to equate the risk with stopping distance, in other words the "wrong place", without taking any consideration of the "wrong time" - which is the time window in which there's actually something in the road to collide with.
There's a lot more wrong with the paper, but that's for another discussion.

And what exactly makes you think that I'm arguing that speed and accident risk are not related? I've never argued that in my life.
What I'm saying is that the relationship has been both exaggerated and distorted.

[Pete317]

tapereel said:

I submitted this many years ago to give some insight into the issue.

Think of 20 people in a boxing ring.
Tell them that they must walk around it at a slow walking pace and they must not touch any other person.
At the slow pace this is achieved.
Now tell them to walk as fast as they can without running. Observe the number of collisions.
Now they must run. Observe the collision rate and now how many sustain bruising.
Now get half to run and the other half to run but half the time stop or walk slowly. Count the collision rate and record the level of injuries.

Do you really need to conduct the experiment to see what happens?

If you want to simulate traffic more closely, insert a number of marked pathways on the floor and get the people to follow set routes at varying speeds.

Good luck with that 317, post up your results table.

I see you're down to schoolboy-type arguments now.

[singlecoil]

Pete317 said:

tapereel said:

I submitted this many years ago to give some insight into the issue.

Think of 20 people in a boxing ring.
Tell them that they must walk around it at a slow walking pace and they must not touch any other person.
At the slow pace this is achieved.
Now tell them to walk as fast as they can without running. Observe the number of collisions.
Now they must run. Observe the collision rate and now how many sustain bruising.
Now get half to run and the other half to run but half the time stop or walk slowly. Count the collision rate and record the level of injuries.

Do you really need to conduct the experiment to see what happens?

If you want to simulate traffic more closely, insert a number of marked pathways on the floor and get the people to follow set routes at varying speeds.

Good luck with that 317, post up your results table.

I see you're down to schoolboy-type arguments now.

If it is a schoolboy argument (which BTW it is not) it's still far superior to your 'driving faster to get past the scene of the accident before it occurs' argument.

[Pete317]

singlecoil said:

If it is a schoolboy argument (which BTW it is not) it's still far superior to your 'driving faster to get past the scene of the accident before it occurs' argument.

I'm glad you get so much amusement out of your gross misrepresentations of what others say

[singlecoil]

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

If it is a schoolboy argument (which BTW it is not) it's still far superior to your 'driving faster to get past the scene of the accident before it occurs' argument.

I'm glad you get so much amusement out of your gross misrepresentations of what others say

I don't get any amusement from pointing out the basic weakness in your argument, but I do it anyway.

[Pete317]

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

If it is a schoolboy argument (which BTW it is not) it's still far superior to your 'driving faster to get past the scene of the accident before it occurs' argument.

I'm glad you get so much amusement out of your gross misrepresentations of what others say

I don't get any amusement from pointing out the basic weakness in your argument, but I do it anyway.

You don't get to point out weaknesses in any argument by severely distorting it.

[singlecoil]

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

If it is a schoolboy argument (which BTW it is not) it's still far superior to your 'driving faster to get past the scene of the accident before it occurs' argument.

I'm glad you get so much amusement out of your gross misrepresentations of what others say

I don't get any amusement from pointing out the basic weakness in your argument, but I do it anyway.

You don't get to point out weaknesses in any argument by severely distorting it.

Not distorting it, just stripping away the BS.

[Pete317]

singlecoil said:

Not distorting it, just stripping away the BS.

You're distorting it.

It's my argument, I know what it's about, and so I know when people are distorting it.

The BS is all yours.

ETA: Just your "driving faster to get past the scene of the accident before it occurs" is a ridiculous distortion of what I actually said.

Edited by Pete317 on Monday 30th May 22:28

[singlecoil]

Pete317 said:

In section 3.1, he attempts to equate the risk with stopping distance, in other words the "wrong place", without taking any consideration of the "wrong time" - which is the time window in which there's actually something in the road to collide with.

[Pete317]

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

In section 3.1, he attempts to equate the risk with stopping distance, in other words the "wrong place", without taking any consideration of the "wrong time" - which is the time window in which there's actually something in the road to collide with.

Your point being????

[akirk]

tapereel said:

I submitted this many years ago to give some insight into the issue.

Think of 20 people in a boxing ring.
Tell them that they must walk around it at a slow walking pace and they must not touch any other person.
At the slow pace this is achieved.
Now tell them to walk as fast as they can without running. Observe the number of collisions.
Now they must run. Observe the collision rate and now how many sustain bruising.
Now get half to run and the other half to run but half the time stop or walk slowly. Count the collision rate and record the level of injuries.

Do you really need to conduct the experiment to see what happens?

If you want to simulate traffic more closely, insert a number of marked pathways on the floor and get the people to follow set routes at varying speeds.

Good luck with that 317, post up your results table.

A good analogy demonstrating why speed is the wrong measure...
Put one person in the ring on their own and they can go at any speed without issue, have an area for fast speed and one for slow - again no issue...

Where your illustration totally fails is that in real life drivers adapt their speed to the situation... So a clear morning with an empty road is very different from the same road in rush hour in the rain and drivers adapt...

Speed in your illustration and in life is not the cause of issues - wrong choice of speed might be, the specific speed in isolation outside that context clearly isn't an issue

Edited by akirk on Tuesday 31st May 08:47

[RobinOakapple]

akirk said:

A good analogy demonstrating why speed is the wrong measure...
Put one person in the ring on their own and they can go at any speed without issue, have an area for fast speed and one for slow - again no issue...

Where your illustration totally fails is that in real life drivers adapt their speed to the situation... So a clear morning with an empty road is very different from the same road in rush hour in the rain and drivers adapt...

Speed in your illustration and in life is not the cause of issues - wrong choice of speed might be, the specific speed in isolation outside that context clearly isn't an issue

Amusing post, but where the point totally fails is the "in real life drivers adapt their speed to the situation" part.

The truth of the matter is similar, but different in one vital point, they don't adapt their speed to 'the' situation, they adapt it to 'their' situation. Granted where there is visible (to them) danger of a collision then they will slow down as in Millwheel's video. But when they are in a hurry, or when they are having speed-related fun, then that becomes part of the 'situation' that they are adapting their speed to.

[tapereel]

RobinOakapple said:

akirk said:

A good analogy demonstrating why speed is the wrong measure...
Put one person in the ring on their own and they can go at any speed without issue, have an area for fast speed and one for slow - again no issue...

Where your illustration totally fails is that in real life drivers adapt their speed to the situation... So a clear morning with an empty road is very different from the same road in rush hour in the rain and drivers adapt...

Speed in your illustration and in life is not the cause of issues - wrong choice of speed might be, the specific speed in isolation outside that context clearly isn't an issue

Amusing post, but where the point totally fails is the "in real life drivers adapt their speed to the situation" part.

The truth of the matter is similar, but different in one vital point, they don't adapt their speed to 'the' situation, they adapt it to 'their' situation. Granted where there is visible (to them) danger of a collision then they will slow down as in Millwheel's video. But when they are in a hurry, or when they are having speed-related fun, then that becomes part of the 'situation' that they are adapting their speed to.

RobinOakapple is exactly right. In the situation I explained the people in the experiment will alter their speed too. Even if you extend the hypothesis to include seperation for certain traffic and speed grouping there will still be an increase in collisions with speed however the number will decrease because of the seperation measures. Even if you have only one person in the ring and the speed is increased at some point the speed will increase beyond what can be managed by that one person. Yes I agree that the person will mitigate the speed to what they think they can manage and so reduce accidents....but change the person and keep changing that person and hey-presto, you will find one who has an over-inflated opinion on what he or she can really manage and an accident will occur. Just like on the road in my opinion.

[akirk]

tapereel said:

RobinOakapple said:

akirk said:

A good analogy demonstrating why speed is the wrong measure...
Put one person in the ring on their own and they can go at any speed without issue, have an area for fast speed and one for slow - again no issue...

Where your illustration totally fails is that in real life drivers adapt their speed to the situation... So a clear morning with an empty road is very different from the same road in rush hour in the rain and drivers adapt...

Speed in your illustration and in life is not the cause of issues - wrong choice of speed might be, the specific speed in isolation outside that context clearly isn't an issue

Amusing post, but where the point totally fails is the "in real life drivers adapt their speed to the situation" part.

The truth of the matter is similar, but different in one vital point, they don't adapt their speed to 'the' situation, they adapt it to 'their' situation. Granted where there is visible (to them) danger of a collision then they will slow down as in Millwheel's video. But when they are in a hurry, or when they are having speed-related fun, then that becomes part of the 'situation' that they are adapting their speed to.

RobinOakapple is exactly right. In the situation I explained the people in the experiment will alter their speed too. Even if you extend the hypothesis to include seperation for certain traffic and speed grouping there will still be an increase in collisions with speed however the number will decrease because of the seperation measures. Even if you have only one person in the ring and the speed is increased at some point the speed will increase beyond what can be managed by that one person. Yes I agree that the person will mitigate the speed to what they think they can manage and so reduce accidents....but change the person and keep changing that person and hey-presto, you will find one who has an over-inflated opinion on what he or she can really manage and an accident will occur. Just like on the road in my opinion.

Exactly - so the main cause of the accident is the person and their over-inflated opinion on what he or she can really manage...

i.e. the person is the issue, not the speed per se - misuse of speed can cause accidents, speed itself doesn't

I can remember some years back someone in a primera trying to catch me in my xjs on a country road and very nearly ending up in the ditch on the right hand side of the road - unable to take that particular bend at that speed...

It wasn't the speed that caused the issue in isolation as that same speed (or in fact a higher speed) caused me no issue at all, the xjs went around the corner on rails...

It was his car / his driving - in combination with that speed - i.e. exactly as you mention, he had an over-inflated opinion of his / his car's ability and nearly came a cropper as a result... But it wasn't the speed itself, as speed is an absolute and I was driving faster and had no issue... Had the speed been the issue I would have had to have been affected as well... As it was demonstrably an issue of car / driver ability - that was the issue not speed... Had he actually crashed then undoubtedly speed would have been blamed whereas the true issue was bad driving...

[tapereel]

akirk said:

tapereel said:

RobinOakapple said:

akirk said:

A good analogy demonstrating why speed is the wrong measure...
Put one person in the ring on their own and they can go at any speed without issue, have an area for fast speed and one for slow - again no issue...

Where your illustration totally fails is that in real life drivers adapt their speed to the situation... So a clear morning with an empty road is very different from the same road in rush hour in the rain and drivers adapt...

Speed in your illustration and in life is not the cause of issues - wrong choice of speed might be, the specific speed in isolation outside that context clearly isn't an issue

Amusing post, but where the point totally fails is the "in real life drivers adapt their speed to the situation" part.

The truth of the matter is similar, but different in one vital point, they don't adapt their speed to 'the' situation, they adapt it to 'their' situation. Granted where there is visible (to them) danger of a collision then they will slow down as in Millwheel's video. But when they are in a hurry, or when they are having speed-related fun, then that becomes part of the 'situation' that they are adapting their speed to.

RobinOakapple is exactly right. In the situation I explained the people in the experiment will alter their speed too. Even if you extend the hypothesis to include seperation for certain traffic and speed grouping there will still be an increase in collisions with speed however the number will decrease because of the seperation measures. Even if you have only one person in the ring and the speed is increased at some point the speed will increase beyond what can be managed by that one person. Yes I agree that the person will mitigate the speed to what they think they can manage and so reduce accidents....but change the person and keep changing that person and hey-presto, you will find one who has an over-inflated opinion on what he or she can really manage and an accident will occur. Just like on the road in my opinion.

Exactly - so the main cause of the accident is the person and their over-inflated opinion on what he or she can really manage...

i.e. the person is the issue, not the speed per se - misuse of speed can cause accidents, speed itself doesn't

I can remember some years back someone in a primera trying to catch me in my xjs on a country road and very nearly ending up in the ditch on the right hand side of the road - unable to take that particular bend at that speed...

It wasn't the speed that caused the issue in isolation as that same speed (or in fact a higher speed) caused me no issue at all, the xjs went around the corner on rails...

It was his car / his driving - in combination with that speed - i.e. exactly as you mention, he had an over-inflated opinion of his / his car's ability and nearly came a cropper as a result... But it wasn't the speed itself, as speed is an absolute and I was driving faster and had no issue... Had the speed been the issue I would have had to have been affected as well... As it was demonstrably an issue of car / driver ability - that was the issue not speed... Had he actually crashed then undoubtedly speed would have been blamed whereas the true issue was bad driving...

If you really think that makes sense then the premise seems fine for your psychological well being, otherwise it seems like nonsense to me.

[akirk]

We all know that speed doesn't kill - otherwise astronauts / jet fighter pilots / F1 drivers / train drivers / etc. etc. would be imploding left right and center...

Therefore it has to be something else in combination with speed which kills
Speed is easiest to measure - ergo the focus on speed

The reality is that it is the human choice / decision which kills - not speed
This is clarified in the example above where you keep changing humans in the boxing ring until you find one where it doesn't work - ergo, they are all doing the same speed, for one it doesn't work - what is the difference, not the speed as that is identical - it is the person...

At a core logical level - speed is totally the wrong place to focus if you want to reduce accidents totally - at a logical level it should be about driver training...

At a pragmatic level looking at costs / quick wins / etc. then yes, it is worth focusing on speed as something that can be easily measured and managed (fined!) however it won't mop up the last xx % where either driver decision is to ignore speed reduction measures (speed limits / cameras / etc.) or simply the accident occurs at a low speed

We are pretty much at that point now - so a continued focus on speed as an issue is logically flawed - you either accept that you can not remove all accidents, or you focus on the real issues which are much tougher:
- driver skills
- driver attitude
- driver decisions
- tiredness
- alcohol
- drugs
- anger management
- etc.
All driver focused - not speed - but they are tough and difficult things to deal with which is why speed becomes the favourite target...

But for anyone who thinks / claims that speed kills / speed is the issue - their logic is flawed