The reason driving faster is more dangerous
Discussion
Esceptico said:
If you increased the speed limits in urban areas from 30 to 40 (and hence increased average speed) then some mistakes / incidents that would have been a near miss would instead result in accidents.
You could increase the speed limits in urban areas to 200mph and in a lot of cases it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the traffic speed which would be little over walking pace anyway.Esceptico said:
In theory driving training would also have an impact but I'm not sure if average ability has improved.
Average ability hasn't improved at all.We are treated as stupid, and almost herded along at mundane speeds all the time.Driving to most folk now is nothing more than a chore. Driving a little quicker keeps you alert. I average approx 60/70k a year, and in over 30 years have never had a single point on my licence, and yet, most of the time I'm overtaking "slower" moving vehicles. I have had accidents, 2 or 3 when I was young and stupid, now I'm just stupid, but all my accidents were at less than 30MPH. Therefore, I appear to be living proof that driving faster apparently is NOT more dangerous.
delboy735 said:
Esceptico said:
In theory driving training would also have an impact but I'm not sure if average ability has improved.
Average ability hasn't improved at all.We are treated as stupid, and almost herded along at mundane speeds all the time.Driving to most folk now is nothing more than a chore. Driving a little quicker keeps you alert. I average approx 60/70k a year, and in over 30 years have never had a single point on my licence, and yet, most of the time I'm overtaking "slower" moving vehicles. I have had accidents, 2 or 3 when I was young and stupid, now I'm just stupid, but all my accidents were at less than 30MPH. Therefore, I appear to be living proof that driving faster apparently is NOT more dangerous.delboy735 said:
Average ability hasn't improved at all.We are treated as stupid, and almost herded along at mundane speeds all the time.Driving to most folk now is nothing more than a chore. Driving a little quicker keeps you alert. I average approx 60/70k a year, and in over 30 years have never had a single point on my licence, and yet, most of the time I'm overtaking "slower" moving vehicles. I have had accidents, 2 or 3 when I was young and stupid, now I'm just stupid, but all my accidents were at less than 30MPH. Therefore, I appear to be living proof that driving faster apparently is NOT more dangerous.
That could be me you're talking about there.Except that I don't have accidents. So I must be driving faster than you....
mybrainhurts said:
delboy735 said:
Average ability hasn't improved at all.We are treated as stupid, and almost herded along at mundane speeds all the time.Driving to most folk now is nothing more than a chore. Driving a little quicker keeps you alert. I average approx 60/70k a year, and in over 30 years have never had a single point on my licence, and yet, most of the time I'm overtaking "slower" moving vehicles. I have had accidents, 2 or 3 when I was young and stupid, now I'm just stupid, but all my accidents were at less than 30MPH. Therefore, I appear to be living proof that driving faster apparently is NOT more dangerous.
That could be me you're talking about there.Except that I don't have accidents. So I must be driving faster than you....
matsoc said:
So it is inevitably that some speed limits are more adequate than others to reach the target accident rate.
Speed limits aren't (necessarily) set to achieve a target accident rate though.I know speed limits that have been reduced on roads with no history of accidents - where NIMBYism and "who you know in the parish council" seem to be the main driving force behind a limit reduction.
Setting of speed limits is supposed to be "evidence led" according to the government white paper - yet I know of at least one limit near me that was reduced in spite of the fact that the county council assessed the old limit and deemed it appropriate for the type of road.
Moonhawk said:
matsoc said:
So it is inevitably that some speed limits are more adequate than others to reach the target accident rate.
Speed limits aren't (necessarily) set to achieve a target accident rate though.I know speed limits that have been reduced on roads with no history of accidents - where NIMBYism and "who you know in the parish council" seem to be the main driving force behind a limit reduction.
Setting of speed limits is supposed to be "evidence led" according to the government white paper - yet I know of at least one limit near me that was reduced in spite of the fact that the county council assessed the old limit and deemed it appropriate for the type of road.
[quote=blueg33
The original OP basically just states the blindingly obvious.
[/quote]
I agree it is blindingly obvious yet there are now 13 pages worth of other posters denying it! The "arguments" against the blindingly obvious seem to boil down to:
- outright denial of any link (with no evidence or just anecdote - "I've driven really fast for years and not crashed" - the "my grandfather smoked until 90 so smoking must be safe argument"
- posts like yours that claim it is obvious but then go on to belittle the link in some way eg "only
1800 die on the roads and that is less than domestic accidents so who cares". This is just denial in another form.
- posts that try to deflect from the topic by raising other points or attacking things I never said - which may be valid in their own right (some limits set for NIBYISM, speed limits aren't the only factor in determining accident rates, etc.
Where is Mr Moose and his notion of "cognitive dissonance" when you need him?!
The original OP basically just states the blindingly obvious.
Edited by blueg33 on Tuesday 17th May 22:36
[/quote]
I agree it is blindingly obvious yet there are now 13 pages worth of other posters denying it! The "arguments" against the blindingly obvious seem to boil down to:
- outright denial of any link (with no evidence or just anecdote - "I've driven really fast for years and not crashed" - the "my grandfather smoked until 90 so smoking must be safe argument"
- posts like yours that claim it is obvious but then go on to belittle the link in some way eg "only
1800 die on the roads and that is less than domestic accidents so who cares". This is just denial in another form.
- posts that try to deflect from the topic by raising other points or attacking things I never said - which may be valid in their own right (some limits set for NIBYISM, speed limits aren't the only factor in determining accident rates, etc.
Where is Mr Moose and his notion of "cognitive dissonance" when you need him?!
Esceptico said:
- posts like yours that claim it is obvious but then go on to belittle the link in some way eg "only
1800 die on the roads and that is less than domestic accidents so who cares". This is just denial in another form.
Stop trolling, it's just having some sense of perspective, a degree of practical proportionality.1800 die on the roads and that is less than domestic accidents so who cares". This is just denial in another form.
Esceptico said:
blueg33 said:
The original OP basically just states the blindingly obvious.
I agree it is blindingly obvious yet there are now 13 pages worth of other posters denying it! The "arguments" against the blindingly obvious seem to boil down to:Edited by blueg33 on Tuesday 17th May 22:36
- outright denial of any link (with no evidence or just anecdote - "I've driven really fast for years and not crashed" - the "my grandfather smoked until 90 so smoking must be safe argument"
- posts like yours that claim it is obvious but then go on to belittle the link in some way eg "only
1800 die on the roads and that is less than domestic accidents so who cares". This is just denial in another form.
- posts that try to deflect from the topic by raising other points or attacking things I never said - which may be valid in their own right (some limits set for NIBYISM, speed limits aren't the only factor in determining accident rates, etc.
Where is Mr Moose and his notion of "cognitive dissonance" when you need him?!
mybrainhurts said:
All this arm waving and consternation over road deaths, when more people are killed in domestic accidents than road accidents.
Amazing.
I'd say we do pretty damn' well in this country.
We are not discussing domestic but RTA and fatalities.Amazing.
I'd say we do pretty damn' well in this country.
Two totally different events I would say.
mybrainhurts said:
Moonhawk said:
matsoc said:
So it is inevitably that some speed limits are more adequate than others to reach the target accident rate.
Speed limits aren't (necessarily) set to achieve a target accident rate though.I know speed limits that have been reduced on roads with no history of accidents - where NIMBYism and "who you know in the parish council" seem to be the main driving force behind a limit reduction.
Setting of speed limits is supposed to be "evidence led" according to the government white paper - yet I know of at least one limit near me that was reduced in spite of the fact that the county council assessed the old limit and deemed it appropriate for the type of road.
Esceptico said:
The point of the thread was to show there is a direct relationship between speed limits and accident rates.
It'll have a tough job as that goes against the grain of pretty much all research I've read on this. How about you, and the research you've read?Esceptico said:
Speed limits are directly related to the number of accidents.
In terms of road type, more accidents occur at low speed near junctions and roundabouts in built-up areas. Fewer accidents occur on motorways, our safest roads.Are you saying therefore that the lower the speed limit the greater the number of accidents? That would seem to hold up.
Beyond that are you assuming that road users obey speed limits? If not, how does the claimed effect operate? If it operates at all, it's a very minor aspect of road safety.
A report from DfT to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee showed that for drivers over 25, only 2% of accidents are caused by exceeding the speed limit. This reaches (or rather remains in) single figures for drivers aged 17-19 where it's 8%. Focusing on speed limit violation will miss around 90% of accidents.
A study published by Spitz reported that the 85th percentile speed of traffic increased less than 0.4 mph in 40 mph zones where speed limits were raised.
Dudek and Ulman found no significant changes in speeds at six urban sites where speed limits were lowered by 10 mph.
Parker measured free-flow speeds for a 24-hr period before a speed limit was altered and on the same day of the week one year later after the speed limit had changed.
Before and after speeds were measured simultaneously at comparison sites where speed limits were not altered to control for time trends.
Raising and lowering speed limits had little or no effect on measured vehicle speeds.
Esceptico said:
It is basic physics and statistics.
Could you possibly expand on the basic physics and basic statistics that somehow turn research evidence on its head? There must surely be something lacking in the application of the above basic physics (etc) for this to be the case.Would you consider the concept of exceeding a safe speed for the vehicle, driver and conditions to be relevant?
turbobloke said:
Esceptico said:
The point of the thread was to show there is a direct relationship between speed limits and accident rates.
It'll have a tough job as that goes against the grain of pretty much all research I've read on this. How about you, and the research you've read?Esceptico said:
Speed limits are directly related to the number of accidents.
In terms of road type, more accidents occur at low speed near junctions and roundabouts in built-up areas. Fewer accidents occur on motorways, our safest roads.Already dealt with ad nauseum in this thread. Did you read the original post or arguments? Motorways are designed to be safer at speeds (by minimising hazards). The very fact that urban roads have greater number of accidents despite lower speed limits proves my point that it is number of potential hazards that are key in accidents rates and that the more hazards the lower the speed limit has to be.
Are you saying therefore that the lower the speed limit the greater the number of accidents? That would seem to hold up.
Not at all what is being argued. You are not comparing like with like.
Beyond that are you assuming that road users obey speed limits? If not, how does the claimed effect operate? If it operates at all, it's a very minor aspect of road safety. Not sure what that has to do with my original argument.
A report from DfT to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee showed that for drivers over 25, only 2% of accidents are caused by exceeding the speed limit. This reaches (or rather remains in) single figures for drivers aged 17-19 where it's 8%. Focusing on speed limit violation will miss around 90% of accidents.
You have not read what I wrote. You are arguing about speeding (exceeding limits) rather than speed limits and accident rates.
A study published by Spitz reported that the 85th percentile speed of traffic increased less than 0.4 mph in 40 mph zones where speed limits were raised.
Perhaps you can provide links to your studies rather than just names.
Dudek and Ulman found no significant changes in speeds at six urban sites where speed limits were lowered by 10 mph.
So you are saying that people ignored lower limits. And that proves what exactly?
Parker measured free-flow speeds for a 24-hr period before a speed limit was altered and on the same day of the week one year later after the speed limit had changed.
Before and after speeds were measured simultaneously at comparison sites where speed limits were not altered to control for time trends.
Raising and lowering speed limits had little or no effect on measured vehicle speeds.
What is the point? I would like to see details of the study. Doesn't chime with personal experience. A road near us was changed from a 40 to a 30. Before people did drive 40 or more (it is a very wide road). It has taken a long time for people to adjust but now average speed is closer to 30 (at least as much as one would expect for such a road).
Esceptico said:
It is basic physics and statistics.
Could you possibly expand on the basic physics and basic statistics that somehow turn research evidence on its head? There must surely be something lacking in the application of the above basic physics (etc) for this to be the case.Perhaps you could read the original post and replies with links to research?
Would you consider the concept of exceeding a safe speed for the vehicle, driver and conditions to be relevant?
Esceptico said:
Not at all relevant to the general link between speed limits and accident rates. There is no such thing as a safe speed (except zero). As you increase speed it becomes less safe. How less safe depends on lots of factors but when looking at millions of drivers and hundreds of millions of journies there will be a statisical relationship.
What research evidence do you adduce in order to support your mere opinions? I have replied to the OP and later posts with research. Your request has already been met.Also what basic physics and basic statistics did you refer to - I couldn't see that in your reply but as you say, formatting went a bit squiffy.
cmaguire said:
KevinCamaroSS said:
I would like to see some proof of that. Increasing the speed limit in London from 30 - 40 would have next to no impact on average speed, because the average speed is far lower because of traffic volume.
And who cares anyway? I can't recollect anyone shouting to increase urban speed limits. The whole speeding issue revolves around non-urban roads, where the State focusses one hell of a lot of their attention but speed is near enough a triviality. Particularly Motorways and Dual Carriageways. It's cynical and pointless.1800 road deaths a year. We should be celebrating. And how many of those were on Motorways and Dual Carriageways? Must be one hell of a lot surely, based on the current carpet-bombing of cameras.
Er, no.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff