Am I missing something?

[RobinOakapple]

akirk said:

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

That was accepted by all concerned a long time ago.

One of the main reasons for speed limits now is to control the impact speeds at which the unavoidable accidents happen.

There are other reasons, for instance, giving drivers more time to avoid the accident altogether.

The speed kills things is just a motto, a maxim, a mission statement, soundbite, whatever and the only people who take it literally are the people who think that there shouldn't be speed limits, or that they should not be enforced with cameras, or that they should be raised etc etc.

[akirk]

RobinOakapple said:

akirk said:

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

That was accepted by all concerned a long time ago.

One of the main reasons for speed limits now is to control the impact speeds at which the unavoidable accidents happen.

There are other reasons, for instance, giving drivers more time to avoid the accident altogether.

The speed kills things is just a motto, a maxim, a mission statement, soundbite, whatever and the only people who take it literally are the people who think that there shouldn't be speed limits, or that they should not be enforced with cameras, or that they should be raised etc etc.

The problem though is that is flawed or non-contextual logic...
On that basis you simply drive speeds down to the bottom - on that logic, 10 mph is better than 20mph is better than 30mph etc. - we should have all motorways running at what speed - 60 would be better than 70 - once accepted, time to bring them down to 50 - then 40 - then 30 etc...
Of course that logic in its purest sense makes sense - in an academic sense - but it bears no relationship to reality - you have to factor in the need for people to move around the country and to do so in a timely and sensible manner - so the constant reduction in speed limits doesn't make sense...

It also introduces issues - when you have a country road which is open and clear, yet the speed limit is reduced for political reasons to e.g. 50 or 40 - then some drivers will ignore that and drive perfectly safely at 60 - however you now have other drivers who are assuming that all road users will be at 40 or under / 50 or under, and that difference will cause issues...

And as you accept and say that all others accept that the issue is not speed - why is it controlled when not necessary?
Why not be clever - e.g. countries like France where the limit is variable based on weather - very sensible
Or recognise that there are areas where a higher limit would be fine - e.g. Germany and derestricted areas

The reality is that it is political decisions taking speed out of context as an easy target...
The examples above demonstrate that it is poor decisions by humans that are the issue - yet you are suggesting that we should deal with the symptoms (reduce the speed so that the consequences aren't as bad) rather than taking the bigger decision to deal with the underlying issue - good thing we don't have a medical system that takes that approach - yes, you deal with the symptoms as well - aspirin for the headache - but you also tackle the cancer - it is a tougher and more expensive job, but it is how you solve the issue

[RobinOakapple]

akirk said:

1) The problem though is that is flawed or non-contextual logic...
On that basis you simply drive speeds down to the bottom - on that logic, 10 mph is better than 20mph is better than 30mph etc. - we should have all motorways running at what speed - 60 would be better than 70 - once accepted, time to bring them down to 50 - then 40 - then 30 etc...
Of course that logic in its purest sense makes sense - in an academic sense - but it bears no relationship to reality - you have to factor in the need for people to move around the country and to do so in a timely and sensible manner - so the constant reduction in speed limits doesn't make sense...

2) It also introduces issues - when you have a country road which is open and clear, yet the speed limit is reduced for political reasons to e.g. 50 or 40 - then some drivers will ignore that and drive perfectly safely at 60 - however you now have other drivers who are assuming that all road users will be at 40 or under / 50 or under, and that difference will cause issues...

3) And as you accept and say that all others accept that the issue is not speed - why is it controlled when not necessary?
Why not be clever - e.g. countries like France where the limit is variable based on weather - very sensible
Or recognise that there are areas where a higher limit would be fine - e.g. Germany and derestricted areas

4) The reality is that it is political decisions taking speed out of context as an easy target...
The examples above demonstrate that it is poor decisions by humans that are the issue - yet you are suggesting that we should deal with the symptoms (reduce the speed so that the consequences aren't as bad) rather than taking the bigger decision to deal with the underlying issue - good thing we don't have a medical system that takes that approach - yes, you deal with the symptoms as well - aspirin for the headache - but you also tackle the cancer - it is a tougher and more expensive job, but it is how you solve the issue

1) Thank you for telling me that, but I think if you went back in my posting history far enough you would find me saying that there has to be a balance struck between the need for reasonable degree of safety and the need for people and stuff to move around the country in a reasonable time.

2) Don't know what point you are trying to make there...

3) Who decides when or when not speed control is necessary? You, other drivers? You are forgetting the practicalities of the matter.

4) I'm suggesting that your final sentence illustrates the fundamental flaw. "Solve the issue"? You can not be serious. There are no solutions available here, just ways of keeping the problem under control.

[akirk]

I think that you will find this is a discussion in this thread - not a detailed analysis & riposte to your posting history
Not quite sure why you take it so personally...

simple analysis:
- speed doesn't kill
- inappropriate use of speed causes accidents / kills
- inappropriate use comes from driver decisions
- solutions need to include managing speed / educating drivers
- current situation is that we have maxed out on the benefits of managing speed - further efforts cause other issues
- way forward is education of drivers
- political expediency means that this will never happen
the end

[RobinOakapple]

akirk said:

I think that you will find this is a discussion in this thread - not a detailed analysis & riposte to your posting history
Not quite sure why you take it so personally...

simple analysis:
- speed doesn't kill
- inappropriate use of speed causes accidents / kills
- inappropriate use comes from driver decisions
- solutions need to include managing speed / educating drivers
- current situation is that we have maxed out on the benefits of managing speed - further efforts cause other issues
- way forward is education of drivers
- political expediency means that this will never happen
the end

I'm not taking this even slightly personally, the point I was making was that you were trying to tell me something I already knew.

Political expediency is not necessarily a bad thing in a democracy, it simply means that the government is doing what it believes the majority wants it to do (in order to get their votes next time) within the context of what is possible.

Good luck with your driver education program by the way, and if you achieve it, good luck with getting your re-educated drivers to actually do what they were taught to do.

[akirk]

RobinOakapple said:

Political expediency is not necessarily a bad thing in a democracy, it simply means that the government is doing what it believes the majority wants it to do (in order to get their votes next time) within the context of what is possible.

Absolutely - if...

if the belief is truly based on what the people want...
if instead it is based on the views of a very small minority who themselves base their opinions on emotion rather than logic - then no...

[Mill Wheel]

RobinOakapple said:

One of the main reasons for speed limits now is to control the impact speeds at which the unavoidable accidents happen.

...and if that fails, because pedestrians still die if they get under the wheels of a slow moving vehicle then close the road to traffic completely, as happens in some places.

RobinOakapple said:

There are other reasons, for instance, giving drivers more time to avoid the accident altogether.

Maybe it would be wise to enforce the two second rule, and stop drivers who drive too close to the vehicle in front... and ensure that ALL road users follow the Highway Code, and share the responsibility for their safety.

It is better to let drivers get on with driving safely, while paying attention to the road and other road users ahead, than to have them worrying about exactly what speed they are travelling at.

[singlecoil]

Mill Wheel said:

It is better to let drivers get on with driving safely, while paying attention to the road and other road users ahead, than to have them worrying about exactly what speed they are travelling at.

Are you suggesting that if drivers were not subjected to speed limits that they would automatically choose a suitably safe speed? Are you also suggesting that drivers are actually distracted by speed limits?

[Mill Wheel]

singlecoil said:

Are you suggesting that if drivers were not subjected to speed limits that they would automatically choose a suitably safe speed? Are you also suggesting that drivers are actually distracted by speed limits?

Believe it or not, MANY drivers DO drive at speeds that are safe for the conditions in spite of the posted limits.
Despite a fatal accident being caused by a driver exceeding the original 60 mph limit, local people called for a reduction, and the limit on the A5087 Ulverston to Barrow coast road.

Cumbria Police conducted a speed survey while the 60 mph limit was in place, and concluded that there were few instances of speeding, and the average speed was just 45 mph.

Since the limit was lowered, there continue to be fatal accidents.
In one, a driver glanced off a vehicle and struck a road side warning sign, which bent over with the impact, and the triangular sign slid off the pole, flew several metres, and struck a father walking close by with his child, and killed him.

Fatal accidents involve a wide and varying range of factors... including vehicles BELOW the posted limit.

[singlecoil]

Mill Wheel said:

singlecoil said:

Are you suggesting that if drivers were not subjected to speed limits that they would automatically choose a suitably safe speed? Are you also suggesting that drivers are actually distracted by speed limits?

Believe it or not, MANY drivers DO drive at speeds that are safe for the conditions in spite of the posted limits.

And the OTHER drivers, what speed do they drive at?

I clipped the extraneous material, hope you don't mind.

[tapereel]

singlecoil said:

Mill Wheel said:

singlecoil said:

Are you suggesting that if drivers were not subjected to speed limits that they would automatically choose a suitably safe speed? Are you also suggesting that drivers are actually distracted by speed limits?

Believe it or not, MANY drivers DO drive at speeds that are safe for the conditions in spite of the posted limits.

And the OTHER drivers, what speed do they drive at?

I clipped the extraneous material, hope you don't mind.

The average speeds at the hazardous bends are reduced because the average driver sees the hazard and reacts accordingly. If the speed limit was at 60mph those who do not drive like the average driver and who do not drive at an appropriate speed may well come to grief at the hazards they have not perceived in time. Drivers who tend to be led by the prevailing limit and who do not consider the nature of the road and potential hazards will not have time to escape the hazards on this road. That has very little to do with the average speed.
Drivers who need to be given more guidance to prevent them from dangers caused by their own poor driving would benefit from being aided by the signalling of a reduced limit; this has the potential to reduce the consequences of their errors.
Of course it is necessary for drivers to have some inclination to be guide by the reduced limits.
I doubt very much that drivers who loose control on this road and cause serious damage to their vehicles and the selves do so at appropriate speeds.
A reduced limit will mitigate the issue, of that I am sure.
A permanently enforced reduced limit will make even more of a difference. Maybe if the cameras can be accepted by the environmentalists the issue would be completely mitigated.
Youngsters will choose somewhere else to ride at speed but they won't be killed on the A5071.
Those who think there is no significant effect of speed on deaths and injury are free to come up with their own instant fix.

[KevinCamaroSS]

Esceptico said:

Human error causes most accidents.

You have just proved it to yourself. It is human error, not speeding, that causes most accidents.

Speed at time of impact will obviously have an effect on the outcome, however, in the majority of accidents (around 95% if government statistics are to be believed) speed in excess of the limit is NOT the primary cause.

So why this government (and some individuals) obsession with speed?

Answer, easy targets to raise revenue.

In my 40 year driving career I have been involved in two accidents, neither of which involved anybody travelling in excess of the speed limit. Both (none fault on my part) were simply human error, lack of concentration and failure to observe properly.

[RobinOakapple]

KevinCamaroSS said:

You have just proved it to yourself. It is human error, not speeding, that causes most accidents.

Speed at time of impact will obviously have an effect on the outcome, however, in the majority of accidents (around 95% if government statistics are to be believed) speed in excess of the limit is NOT the primary cause.

So why this government (and some individuals) obsession with speed?

Answer, easy targets to raise revenue.

In my 40 year driving career I have been involved in two accidents, neither of which involved anybody travelling in excess of the speed limit. Both (none fault on my part) were simply human error, lack of concentration and failure to observe properly.

not this old rubbish again FFS!

[4x4Tyke]

bryan35 said:

'3,064 people were killed or seriously injured in crashes where speed was a factor'

How many of those occurred on a road?

Undoubtedly the majority, therefore roads kill, therefore we should ban roads.

[WD39]

4x4Tyke said:

bryan35 said:

'3,064 people were killed or seriously injured in crashes where speed was a factor'

How many of those occurred on a road?

Undoubtedly the majority, therefore roads kill, therefore we should ban roads.

Thank you posters for all the statistics, ratios and degrees of probability.

But really it's quite simple,we just have to S.dab (slow down a bit.)