Parallels between drink driving and speeding
Discussion
Thinking about the ethics of speeding it struck me that there are parallels with drink driving - please note this means there are similarities, not a one to one correspondence (this is probably a failed attempt to stop some on here raising objections to arguments I'm not making).
Although drink driving laws have existed for a long time they were not rigorously enforced for many years. Given how prevalent drink driving was when I was growing up in the 70s it was also socially acceptable to a degree unimaginable today (I don't mean driving whilst completely drunk but well in excess of today's limits). Only with the introduction of blood alcohol limits was an objective test introduced (previously I believe there was a lot of discretion on the part of police officers who had to enforce the drink driving law). A concerted public information campaign to demonise drink driving together with stricter limits and harsh punishments have made drink driving socially unacceptable and rarer.
Similarly, speeding was initially not enforced very much because it relied on policemen catching you in the act. Only with the introduction of technology like speed guns and more recently speed cameras have the police been able to catch much higher numbers of speeders. I see parallels between the "don't drink and drive" and "speed kills" public information campaigns. Clearly the speed kills has not yet had the same "success", at least in the UK. In Switzerland they have been more successful in making speeding unacceptable - partly because of some high profile crashes where young foreigners caused innocent parties (Swiss people!) to die.
A less obvious parallel is that a defence of drink driving could be mounted in the same way as for speeding. Although there is a statistical link between drink driving and accidents it is also true that the vast majority of people that do and have driven over the limit have not crashed or caused accidents. It is also true that when and where you drive will have a significant impact on the danger of drink driving (half a mile from the pub on a deserted road not the same as in town at 3:30 on a school day). It is also true that alcohol affects people differently so some people below the limit may be affected more than some people above the limit (personally I don't feel comfortable driving after even one drink). It could be argued that whether someone is capable of driving after drinking should be left to their own discretion as they are better able to judge whether they are in a fit state or whether they are endangering anyone by their actions. Why should such people stick to the drink driving limits? Isn't the limit just an arbitrary number that ignores the specifics of the situation? If I feel perfectly able to drive after 4 pints what right does the government have to infringe upon my personal freedom of enjoying a legal beverage?
I've not heard the argument above used to defend drink driving. In fact I've not recently heard anyone defend drink driving at all. The arguments sound implausible yet are used in defence of speeding. However, with the on-going campaign to demonise speeding will people in twenty years have a similar view towards current arguments defending the right to speed? Of course, in twenty years if speeding has been demonised enough such that governments are able to introduce technology to prevent us from speeding (or we are all on self driving cars) then the point might be moot.
Although drink driving laws have existed for a long time they were not rigorously enforced for many years. Given how prevalent drink driving was when I was growing up in the 70s it was also socially acceptable to a degree unimaginable today (I don't mean driving whilst completely drunk but well in excess of today's limits). Only with the introduction of blood alcohol limits was an objective test introduced (previously I believe there was a lot of discretion on the part of police officers who had to enforce the drink driving law). A concerted public information campaign to demonise drink driving together with stricter limits and harsh punishments have made drink driving socially unacceptable and rarer.
Similarly, speeding was initially not enforced very much because it relied on policemen catching you in the act. Only with the introduction of technology like speed guns and more recently speed cameras have the police been able to catch much higher numbers of speeders. I see parallels between the "don't drink and drive" and "speed kills" public information campaigns. Clearly the speed kills has not yet had the same "success", at least in the UK. In Switzerland they have been more successful in making speeding unacceptable - partly because of some high profile crashes where young foreigners caused innocent parties (Swiss people!) to die.
A less obvious parallel is that a defence of drink driving could be mounted in the same way as for speeding. Although there is a statistical link between drink driving and accidents it is also true that the vast majority of people that do and have driven over the limit have not crashed or caused accidents. It is also true that when and where you drive will have a significant impact on the danger of drink driving (half a mile from the pub on a deserted road not the same as in town at 3:30 on a school day). It is also true that alcohol affects people differently so some people below the limit may be affected more than some people above the limit (personally I don't feel comfortable driving after even one drink). It could be argued that whether someone is capable of driving after drinking should be left to their own discretion as they are better able to judge whether they are in a fit state or whether they are endangering anyone by their actions. Why should such people stick to the drink driving limits? Isn't the limit just an arbitrary number that ignores the specifics of the situation? If I feel perfectly able to drive after 4 pints what right does the government have to infringe upon my personal freedom of enjoying a legal beverage?
I've not heard the argument above used to defend drink driving. In fact I've not recently heard anyone defend drink driving at all. The arguments sound implausible yet are used in defence of speeding. However, with the on-going campaign to demonise speeding will people in twenty years have a similar view towards current arguments defending the right to speed? Of course, in twenty years if speeding has been demonised enough such that governments are able to introduce technology to prevent us from speeding (or we are all on self driving cars) then the point might be moot.
ikarl said:
Ok, imagine the scenario where someone 'feels' ok drinking 10 pints, and then kills someone you love...
Drink driving is, imo, in a much higher risk category than speeding. There are many reasons people do not defend drink driving.
Clearly they are not exact parallels because if you drink 10 pints you are more dangerous all the time you are driving whereas you could stop speeding at any point.
singlecoil said:
Now if they were all as good at driving as they think they are, I wouldn't mind them choosing their own limits. But a lot/most of them aren't, they are the ones than need limits, and I am happy to have limits imposed on me, even though I don't need them, in order that they are also imposed on the people who do.
Spot on. The picture painted on PH of the average speeder is someone fully in control and knowing where and when it is safe to speed. That may apply to some but isn't my experience. It is not surprising if you consider why people might speed. Some or all the following probably apply:- a liking for risk and risk taking activities because of the buzz it provides
- impatience
- aggressiveness
- lack of consideration for others
- willingness to break rules
TooMany2cvs said:
Equally, nobody ever said that it wasn't.
There is no direct correlation between a speed limit and a safe or appropriate speed for any stretch of road - merely a legal one.
Well that is simply not true. There is no direct correlation between a speed limit and a safe or appropriate speed for any stretch of road - merely a legal one.
As a general principle the higher the number of hazards or risk of hazards the lower the speed limit. In urban areas with lots of pedestrians, cyclists, junctions, driveways and people parking and pulling out it is much safer with a speed limit of 30 rather than 70. On a well sighted dual carriageway or motorway then a much higher speed than 30 is still safe.
Speed limits are based on average situations and not the extreme. I don't understand why that is a problem for some people to grasp. On average it wouldn't be safe to have a 70 limit in town, even if at 3 am it might be safe to drive at 70.
Just because some roads may have the "wrong" limit does not mean that the whole system is wrong. Speed limits are set by people and people make mistakes or are open to undue influence.
Also, just because it could be argued that the current limits could be different (some lower and some higher) doesn't mean that the system as a whole is wrong.
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.
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. 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.
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 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.Correlation means a relationship between two variables.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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. Pete317 said:
As you very evidently misconstrued what I wrote, I'll put it another way.
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.
On the one hand there is your unsubstantiated "argument" and on the other there is a wealth of accident statistics that show a relationship between risk of accidents and speed, hazards, alcohol consumption. 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.
Your argument flies in the face of both common sense and most people's own experience. Your comments about the likelihood of an accident also strikes me as odd given that I personally know a number of people that have been killed or injured in RTAs (as drivers, riders and pedestrians). It only happens to a minority but a significant minority.
Anyway, as you are obviously not basing your opinion on evidence it's worthless trying to debate the issue with you.
Pete317 said:
There are 30 million drivers in the UK - you do the arithmetic.
Now tell me again how my arguments are unsubstantiated opinion.
And I'd be happy to discuss any of the research you've been looking at.
This link that I posted earlier contains references to a number of studies showing a link between accident risk and speed, accident risk and complexity (basically number of hazards) and finally a comparison of accident risk for drink driving and speed. Now tell me again how my arguments are unsubstantiated opinion.
And I'd be happy to discuss any of the research you've been looking at.
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/wcm/road_safety/erso...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff