Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents
Discussion
Surely the point isn't speeding per se.
It's excess speed that is the issue. 63 in a 60 isn't really excessive and would have a minimal difference in terms of risk and severity of accident whereas 90 in the same location would have a material impact.
What I would like to see is proper peer reviewed data that demonstrates speeding is a significant factor in a significant pgopofgion of accidents. Emmat says it exists buy repeatedly fails to provide a link to anything yet makes statements that imply they are based on fact rather than rhetoric.
It's excess speed that is the issue. 63 in a 60 isn't really excessive and would have a minimal difference in terms of risk and severity of accident whereas 90 in the same location would have a material impact.
What I would like to see is proper peer reviewed data that demonstrates speeding is a significant factor in a significant pgopofgion of accidents. Emmat says it exists buy repeatedly fails to provide a link to anything yet makes statements that imply they are based on fact rather than rhetoric.
Dammit said:
Exactly- how would you know that someone was going to do that?
You have eyes, and a brain. Use them.Why do you not do 60 down a crowded high street? Is it because of the speed limit? Or is it because of the clear and present danger of someone running out in front of you?
And how do you know that someone's not going to run out 20 feet ahead of you on a clear, open road? Is it because of the 60mph limit? Or is it because you have eyes?
Jon1967x said:
Nothing in my post suggested that road sense wasn't a good thing, in fact it did quite the opposite, I even suggested that both speeds could be safe to the extent that an accident could be avoided, the point was to illustrate the time to react was different because often the thing that's fixed is the distance on the road you have to react. You now seem to be suggesting that it's not speed that causes a problem but you need to slow down in certain situations which implies it is.
It seems we either agree despite you not wanting to admit it or we're having some big semantic argument about its not what a driver does that causes accidents, it's the drivers error of judgement that's at fault. In your example, misjudging the bend so failing to slow down which meant less time to deal with the problem which is the crux of the whole argument. The drivers error of judgement in a lot of accidents includes driving too quickly for the situation and to me that means speed is a factor
You're the one who brought up the blind bend scenario, and then seemingly presented it as if it were the rule, rather than the exception.It seems we either agree despite you not wanting to admit it or we're having some big semantic argument about its not what a driver does that causes accidents, it's the drivers error of judgement that's at fault. In your example, misjudging the bend so failing to slow down which meant less time to deal with the problem which is the crux of the whole argument. The drivers error of judgement in a lot of accidents includes driving too quickly for the situation and to me that means speed is a factor
irocfan said:
singlecoil said:
irocfan said:
well for the BRAKE contributors on here here is the logical conclusion to your arguments...
The old appeal to ridicule, always an argument winner as far as the 'go faster' brigade are concerned. Trouble is, it doesn't work on anyone else.
kwittery spewed on here. A road which has seen no accidents as an NSL is reduced to a 40 and suddenly you're going to crash and burn because you're doing 45? Please! Yes you're breaking the law but that's itsinglecoil said:
blueg33 said:
Having said that i will be perfectly safe if I travel at 59 mph a couple of inches behind the car in front,
Straw man argument. Nobody has ever said that driving under the speed limit is automatically safe. Nobody. Ever. And yet anti-speed-limit campaigners bang on about it as if by so doing they are winning an argument. They are not.A good example of this were the accidents used by SCPs to justify speed cameras, where even a driver having a heart attack at the wheel and driving off the road to end up upside down in a ditch was used to qualify a site for
blueg33 said:
Dammit said:
What % would be significant?
Thats why I would like to see the researchhttp://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enforce/speed_f...
Mill Wheel said:
singlecoil said:
blueg33 said:
Having said that i will be perfectly safe if I travel at 59 mph a couple of inches behind the car in front,
Straw man argument. Nobody has ever said that driving under the speed limit is automatically safe. Nobody. Ever. And yet anti-speed-limit campaigners bang on about it as if by so doing they are winning an argument. They are not.A good example of this were the accidents used by SCPs to justify speed cameras, where even a driver having a heart attack at the wheel and driving off the road to end up upside down in a ditch was used to qualify a site for
On another point, I believe I've asked you before about what you would have in place of speed limits and their enforcement, but haven't heard your response as yet, did I miss it?
singlecoil said:
Continuation of the straw man.
On another point, I believe I've asked you before about what you would have in place of speed limits and their enforcement, but haven't heard your response as yet, did I miss it?
I am sure you must have missed it... so I will post it again!On another point, I believe I've asked you before about what you would have in place of speed limits and their enforcement, but haven't heard your response as yet, did I miss it?
Firstly it should not be up to councils to set speed limits - often against the advice of police.
Limits should not be set to serve other political agendas, they should be set with safety in mind.
Enforcement of ALL traffic laws should be even handed and across the board, carried out by a properly trained and equipped police force - not via an invoice in the post a week later!
If somebody is driving dangerously, they should be stopped IMMEDIATELY.
Drivers who have fog lights on when there is no fog are as dangerous as those who have no light on in poor visibility, and those drivers too, should be stopped.
Finally those road safety adverts of the 60s 70s and early 80s on our TV should be brought back.
Anyone remember Sir Robert Marks "major contribution to road safety"?
Edited by Mill Wheel on Thursday 23 October 10:05
The return of public information TV adverts would indeed be a good idea. If the money spent on installing and maintaining 'x' number of speed cameras could instead be used to fund a number of TV information campaigns each year I would view this as a much better use of time and money.
AA999 said:
The return of public information TV adverts would indeed be a good idea. If the money spent on installing and maintaining 'x' number of speed cameras could instead be used to fund a number of TV information campaigns each year I would view this as a much better use of time and money.
It never ceases to amaze me that even some new drivers, as well as experienced drivers are unaware of laws and advice to maintain safety on the road.Incorrect use of fog lights is one such action... it is illegal to have them on when not required.
Manufacturers could help too - I cannot put my rear fogs on without first turning on the front ones - if I am on the end of a line of traffic in fog... why would I want to inconvenience the vehicle in front, just to alert drivers coming up behind me?
Perhaps reading the Highway Code should be compulsory - or drivers could be tested on it every year when they apply for insurance, to obtain discounts!
DfT's own figures are here
dft figures
Interestingly exceeding the speed limit is only a factor in 4% of total accidents and a factor in 15% of fatal ones.
The bulk of accidents aappear to be failure to look properly.
I dont have time tro analyse them fully - but after a quick look it demonstrates to me that the bulk of the focus on road safety is in the wrong place
dft figures
Interestingly exceeding the speed limit is only a factor in 4% of total accidents and a factor in 15% of fatal ones.
The bulk of accidents aappear to be failure to look properly.
I dont have time tro analyse them fully - but after a quick look it demonstrates to me that the bulk of the focus on road safety is in the wrong place
blueg33 said:
DfT's own figures are here
dft figures
Interestingly exceeding the speed limit is only a factor in 4% of total accidents and a factor in 15% of fatal ones.
The bulk of accidents aappear to be failure to look properly.
I dont have time tro analyse them fully - but after a quick look it demonstrates to me that the bulk of the focus on road safety is in the wrong place
Those are the stats I linked to earlier (many many pages ago!!)dft figures
Interestingly exceeding the speed limit is only a factor in 4% of total accidents and a factor in 15% of fatal ones.
The bulk of accidents aappear to be failure to look properly.
I dont have time tro analyse them fully - but after a quick look it demonstrates to me that the bulk of the focus on road safety is in the wrong place
15% of fatal puts it in the top 4 of contributory factors for fatal collisions.
Bear in mind that collisions often have multiple contributory factors, so there will be significant overlap in "Exceeding the speed limit" and "Loss of control" for example.
The stats certainly show that exceeding the speed limit is a significant problem, which is the opposite of what the "safe speed" proponents would have us believe.
Jon1967x said:
You really don't get it do you. You go round a blind bend and find an obstacle in the road causing you to stop. If your are travelling faster you have less time because it's the distance on the road that's fixed. That's not to say you can't stop, you might, but then you might not.
No, I'm afraid it's you that doesn't get it.The mantra of "speed kills" is naive at best and misleading at worst.
In your example of driving around a "blind" bend it's not the absolute speed that's the issue, it's whether or not the driver is able to stop on his side of the road in the distance seen to be clear. The safe speed is therefore determined by the vision available. If you can stop in the distance seen to be clear, you'll be able to stop; if you can't, you won't, and you'll crash. See, it's really very simple and doesn't depend on speed limits or any other exhortants to slow down.
The safe speed through your "blind" bend [now there's an emotive description if ever there was one, very few bends are "blind"] is maybe 5mph, 10mph, 15mph, who knows? The only way to judge the correct, safe speed is...
"CAN I STOP ON MY SIDE OF THE ROAD IN THE DISTANCE SEEN TO BE CLEAR"
Mill Wheel said:
I am sure you must have missed it... so I will post it again!
Firstly it should not be up to councils to set speed limits - often against the advice of police.
Limits should not be set to serve other political agendas, they should be set with safety in mind.
Enforcement of ALL traffic laws should be even handed and across the board, carried out by a properly trained and equipped police force - not via an invoice in the post a week later!
If somebody is driving dangerously, they should be stopped IMMEDIATELY.
Drivers who have fog lights on when there is no fog are as dangerous as those who have no light on in poor visibility, and those drivers too, should be stopped.
Finally those road safety adverts of the 60s 70s and early 80s on our TV should be brought back.
Anyone remember Sir Robert Marks "major contribution to road safety"?
Cutting away the extraneous material in your post, it would seem that you are in favour of speed limits as long as they are set by some public body of which you approve, and that they should not be enforced except by two policemen in a moving police car?Firstly it should not be up to councils to set speed limits - often against the advice of police.
Limits should not be set to serve other political agendas, they should be set with safety in mind.
Enforcement of ALL traffic laws should be even handed and across the board, carried out by a properly trained and equipped police force - not via an invoice in the post a week later!
If somebody is driving dangerously, they should be stopped IMMEDIATELY.
Drivers who have fog lights on when there is no fog are as dangerous as those who have no light on in poor visibility, and those drivers too, should be stopped.
Finally those road safety adverts of the 60s 70s and early 80s on our TV should be brought back.
Anyone remember Sir Robert Marks "major contribution to road safety"?
Edited by Mill Wheel on Thursday 23 October 10:05
v12Legs said:
blueg33 said:
DfT's own figures are here
dft figures
Interestingly exceeding the speed limit is only a factor in 4% of total accidents and a factor in 15% of fatal ones.
The bulk of accidents appear to be failure to look properly.
I dont have time tro analyse them fully - but after a quick look it demonstrates to me that the bulk of the focus on road safety is in the wrong place
Those are the stats I linked to earlier (many many pages ago!!)dft figures
Interestingly exceeding the speed limit is only a factor in 4% of total accidents and a factor in 15% of fatal ones.
The bulk of accidents appear to be failure to look properly.
I dont have time tro analyse them fully - but after a quick look it demonstrates to me that the bulk of the focus on road safety is in the wrong place
15% of fatal puts it in the top 4 of contributory factors for fatal collisions.
Bear in mind that collisions often have multiple contributory factors, so there will be significant overlap in "Exceeding the speed limit" and "Loss of control" for example.
The stats certainly show that exceeding the speed limit is a significant problem, which is the opposite of what the "safe speed" proponents would have us believe.
If you could stop illegal speeding, there would still be deaths due to speed - but not enforceable by speed cameras. Better ddriver training and education is the key.
Mill Wheel said:
That was not how the court saw it - the driver was found guilty of CAUSING death by careless driving.
Indeed, the driver had committed himself to crossing the path of the biker BEFORE he reached the lane he was turning into...
..despite the bikers speed of 100 mph.
If the rider was travelling at 60, there was still a good chance he would die if somebody turned across in front.Indeed, the driver had committed himself to crossing the path of the biker BEFORE he reached the lane he was turning into...
..despite the bikers speed of 100 mph.
Mirror said:
The motorist admitted causing death by careless driving and got a 12 months community sentence in April and an 18 month driving ban.
He was also ordered to pay £200 costs with a £60 surcharge and do 130 hours unpaid work.
Ch Insp Spinks added: "We know from the footage that David was travelling up to 100mph. Regardless of the speed of the bike, the car manoeuvre should not have been attempted."
He was also ordered to pay £200 costs with a £60 surcharge and do 130 hours unpaid work.
Ch Insp Spinks added: "We know from the footage that David was travelling up to 100mph. Regardless of the speed of the bike, the car manoeuvre should not have been attempted."
More pedestrians for instance are likely to take a risk in slow traffic than fast moving traffic!
I ride a bicycle to and from work, and a lot more people step out in front of me on my bike than do when I am in my car!
singlecoil said:
Mill Wheel said:
I am sure you must have missed it... so I will post it again!
Firstly it should not be up to councils to set speed limits - often against the advice of police.
Limits should not be set to serve other political agendas, they should be set with safety in mind.
Enforcement of ALL traffic laws should be even handed and across the board, carried out by a properly trained and equipped police force - not via an invoice in the post a week later!
If somebody is driving dangerously, they should be stopped IMMEDIATELY.
Drivers who have fog lights on when there is no fog are as dangerous as those who have no light on in poor visibility, and those drivers too, should be stopped.
Finally those road safety adverts of the 60s 70s and early 80s on our TV should be brought back.
Anyone remember Sir Robert Marks "major contribution to road safety"?
Cutting away the extraneous material in your post, it would seem that you are in favour of speed limits as long as they are set by some public body of which you approve, and that they should not be enforced except by two policemen in a moving police car?Firstly it should not be up to councils to set speed limits - often against the advice of police.
Limits should not be set to serve other political agendas, they should be set with safety in mind.
Enforcement of ALL traffic laws should be even handed and across the board, carried out by a properly trained and equipped police force - not via an invoice in the post a week later!
If somebody is driving dangerously, they should be stopped IMMEDIATELY.
Drivers who have fog lights on when there is no fog are as dangerous as those who have no light on in poor visibility, and those drivers too, should be stopped.
Finally those road safety adverts of the 60s 70s and early 80s on our TV should be brought back.
Anyone remember Sir Robert Marks "major contribution to road safety"?
Edited by Mill Wheel on Thursday 23 October 10:05
I have emboldened some points to make it clearer for you.
I approve of speed limits that are set with safety in mind - not safety perceived by a council who are cowed by the likes of BRAKE into doing something about accidents that may or are not related to speed.
Mill Wheel said:
But those 15% that are contained within the fatal figures are represented in just 4% of all causes.
I don't think you're reading the stats correctly. Speeding was a contributory factor in 4% of all collisions, and 15% of fatal collisions. That means speeding drivers are far far more likely to kill someone rather than only slightly injure them, for rather obvious reasons.Mill Wheel said:
If you could stop illegal speeding, there would still be deaths due to speed - but not enforceable by speed cameras. Better ddriver training and education is the key.
Can't we have both?I'd have a bit more sympathy with the anti-speed limit argument if there was any evidence that drivers tended to only break the "unnecessary" or "illogical" speed limits. I see people blasting through densely populated urban areas at well over 30 all the time.
The fact is, a lot of drivers are incapable of assessing a safe speed to travel at, and traffic police cannot be everywhere, so speed cameras are a useful tool to catch people so stupid and/or unobservant that they cannot match their speed to the clearly posted legal limit.
Obviously the residents of PH are far superior to the average driver, and can safely drive any road at 100mph or more, but unfortunately we have to make laws to protect people from the crap average driver.
The fact is, a lot of drivers are incapable of assessing a safe speed to travel at, and traffic police cannot be everywhere, so speed cameras are a useful tool to catch people so stupid and/or unobservant that they cannot match their speed to the clearly posted legal limit.
Obviously the residents of PH are far superior to the average driver, and can safely drive any road at 100mph or more, but unfortunately we have to make laws to protect people from the crap average driver.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff