The reason driving faster is more dangerous

[Esceptico]

turbobloke said:

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.

Have you read the whole thread?

You have quoted research but not provided a hyperlink so we can see it for ourselves.

A link to a site with some research showing a relationship between speed limits and accident rates.
None of your quoted research addressed that point.



http://ec.europa.eu/transport/wcm/road_safety/erso...

[KevinCamaroSS]

Esceptico said:

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).

Would you like to show the evidence that this has happened, such as measured average speeds before and after the limit changes? In my 40 odd years of driving I have noted that generally people are driving at closer to 40 than 30 in 30 limits, particularly where it has been lowered from a higher limit.

I would agree that limits should be set according to the hazards of a particular road, rather than any political reason. However, your thread title is arrant nonsense. If it was true then most accidents would occur on motorways, regardless of design and hazards. German autobahns would be permanently closed through accidents because some drivers travel at double the UK speed limit on mostly dual lane roads. To say that the only safe speed is zero is also ridiculous.

Back to my original point, that is, lack of concentration is probably the largest contributor to accidents. Concentration generally increases with speed up to a point where concern starts to take over. In concentration terms that point where the highest concentration occurs is generally the safest speed to travel at. This level changes according to the conditions etc. So, in an urban environment 25-30 may be correct, roads with less hazards will be demonstrably higher. Thus showing that 'driving faster is more dangerous' is not correct.

If you had put 'The reason driving faster than the safest speed for the road is more dangerous' then I would agree with you.

[turbobloke]

Esceptico said:

turbobloke said:

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.

Have you read the whole thread?

You have quoted research but not provided a hyperlink so we can see it for ourselves.

I was replying in particular to your OP and subsequent posts, and would have thought (apparently wrongly) that if somebody was in the business of writing a lengthy account as lengthy as the OP, they would have a basic awareness of the research evidence beforehand. I have hard copies not URLs.

Esceptico said:

None of your quoted research addressed that point.

You must have been reading another post, all of it is relevant.

As to the question you posed, I was replying to a quote from yourself about speed limits so everything I posted was relevant.

[mybrainhurts]

WD39 said:

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.

Two totally different events I would say.

We're nearly through May, so award yourself the Statin' The Bleedin' Obvious Award for this month.

The point you miss is the mismatch in potential for casualties on the roads and in the home.

Given that the huge potential for road casualties is eclipsed by accidental deaths in the safety of our homes, it's clear we manage road deaths very well.

We ought to congratulate ourselves on this achievement, rather than run around in circles, waving arms and wailing something needs to be done.

It has been done. Rather well.

[turbobloke]

Already shown from research evidence: driving slower is more dangerous.

As anyone who's read the thread will have seen.

/thread

[Esceptico]

KevinCamaroSS said:

Would you like to show the evidence that this has happened, such as measured average speeds before and after the limit changes? In my 40 odd years of driving I have noted that generally people are driving at closer to 40 than 30 in 30 limits, particularly where it has been lowered from a higher limit.

I would agree that limits should be set according to the hazards of a particular road, rather than any political reason. However, your thread title is arrant nonsense. If it was true then most accidents would occur on motorways, regardless of design and hazards. German autobahns would be permanently closed through accidents because some drivers travel at double the UK speed limit on mostly dual lane roads. To say that the only safe speed is zero is also ridiculous.

Back to my original point, that is, lack of concentration is probably the largest contributor to accidents. Concentration generally increases with speed up to a point where concern starts to take over. In concentration terms that point where the highest concentration occurs is generally the safest speed to travel at. This level changes according to the conditions etc. So, in an urban environment 25-30 may be correct, roads with less hazards will be demonstrably higher. Thus showing that 'driving faster is more dangerous' is not correct.

If you had put 'The reason driving faster than the safest speed for the road is more dangerous' then I would agree with you.

Have you read my original post or just the title of this thread? If yes can you address the arguments put forward in the first post? Sorry if you have already read it but you seem to be arguing against things I didn't say.

[GadgeS3C]

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.

In my riding/driving life I've had 4 accidents.

3 were when I was stationary. I was also involved in one as a kid in dad's car - also when stationary.

Based on a statistical analysis of the above I'm keeping moving - zero is a bloody dangerous speed.

[Esceptico]

GadgeS3C said:

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.

In my riding/driving life I've had 4 accidents.

3 were when I was stationary. I was also involved in one as a kid in dad's car - also when stationary.

Based on a statistical analysis of the above I'm keeping moving - zero is a bloody dangerous speed.

So....the vehicles that caused the accident and drove into you...were they moving or not? A bit like saying that driving into a stationary wall not dangerous as the wall is not moving!

[WD39]

mybrainhurts said:

WD39 said:

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.

Two totally different events I would say.

We're nearly through May, so award yourself the Statin' The Bleedin' Obvious Award for this month.

The point you miss is the mismatch in potential for casualties on the roads and in the home.

Given that the huge potential for road casualties is eclipsed by accidental deaths in the safety of our homes, it's clear we manage road deaths very well.

We ought to congratulate ourselves on this achievement, rather than run around in circles, waving arms and wailing something needs to be done.

It has been done. Rather well.

I already have the honour of that award (twice.)

Edited by WD39 on Friday 20th May 11:27

[Esceptico]

turbobloke said:

You must have been reading another post, all of it is relevant.

As to the question you posed, I was replying to a quote from yourself about speed limits so everything I posted was relevant.

You referenced a number of studies showing that changes in speed limits did not change recorded speeds. How does that prove or disprove the idea that speed limits and accident rates (for individual types of road) are linked?

You referenced a gov report that reported said that speeding caused a certain percentage of accidents. Without seeing the report and finding out how those figures were derived it is impossible for me to comment. How was exceeding the speed limit defined and measured? Was that for all accidents? Just those with fatalities or serious casualties? Only for where speed was the main cause rather than contribution (where there were many factors)? How was the cause of accident determined and by whom?

[mph1977]

WD39 said:

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.

Two totally different events I would say.

which is why deaths due to incidents in domestic premises have have also come under close attention , fire / smoke / CO detection, fire alamrs in HMOs, contruction of soft furnishings , changes in wiring etc practice ven before Part P , the requirement to use CORGI> GasSafe for changes ot domestic gas systems ,

then there's the social change stuff around smoking, over chips taking over from deep frying etc etc etc ...

[KevinCamaroSS]

Esceptico said:

Have you read my original post or just the title of this thread? If yes can you address the arguments put forward in the first post? Sorry if you have already read it but you seem to be arguing against things I didn't say.

As you know very well I have read the whole thread, and commented on your own comments.

[Toltec]

TooMany2cvs said:

So what IS a recommended speed to crash at?

I thought it was 20mph, at that speed there is no need to pay any attention you can just run into things safely.

[GadgeS3C]

Esceptico said:

GadgeS3C said:

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.

In my riding/driving life I've had 4 accidents.

3 were when I was stationary. I was also involved in one as a kid in dad's car - also when stationary.

Based on a statistical analysis of the above I'm keeping moving - zero is a bloody dangerous speed.

So....the vehicles that caused the accident and drove into you...were they moving or not? A bit like saying that driving into a stationary wall not dangerous as the wall is not moving!

Just responding to your flawed hypothesis...

[delboy735]

To summarise, OP writes some stuff, most people dissagree

[Who me ?]

Esceptico - having looked at this persos posts, I'm convinced this is another re in carnation of the rear admiral of CSSP ,our much mal aligned Steve Callaghan, AKA Capt'n Pingu of the Cumbrian speed brigade. Definitely septic to the cause of road safety vs speed on our countries roads.

[Red Devil]

Esceptico said:

turbobloke said:

You must have been reading another post, all of it is relevant.

As to the question you posed, I was replying to a quote from yourself about speed limits so everything I posted was relevant.

You referenced a number of studies showing that changes in speed limits did not change recorded speeds. How does that prove or disprove the idea that speed limits and accident rates (for individual types of road) are linked?

You referenced a gov report that reported said that speeding caused a certain percentage of accidents. Without seeing the report and finding out how those figures were derived it is impossible for me to comment. How was exceeding the speed limit defined and measured? Was that for all accidents? Just those with fatalities or serious casualties? Only for where speed was the main cause rather than contribution (where there were many factors)? How was the cause of accident determined and by whom?

Those who disagree with you could say the same about the one you linked to earlier. Have you seen the data and examined the underlying methodology? If not, why not? You can't have it both ways.

[jmsgld]

I used to live in Melbourne, Australia. The speed limits are significantly lower than in the UK. The driving is horrible as the limits are too low prevent boredom, on a daily basis you would see clear evidence of near accidents caused by lack of concentration.

I would suggest that in the case of Australia the low speed limits increase the dangerousness of the roads.

This is borne out by the fatalities per 1 billion vehicle km travelled, 5.2 to 3.6. an increase of of over 40%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by...

There is obviously more to it than this and the data are not available, but from my experiences I am 100% convinced that driving in Australia is more dangerous as a result of the lower speed limits.

[longblackcoat]

jmsgld said:

I used to live in Melbourne, Australia. The speed limits are significantly lower than in the UK. The driving is horrible as the limits are too low prevent boredom, on a daily basis you would see clear evidence of near accidents caused by lack of concentration.

I would suggest that in the case of Australia the low speed limits increase the dangerousness of the roads.

This is borne out by the fatalities per 1 billion vehicle km travelled, 5.2 to 3.6. an increase of of over 40%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by...

There is obviously more to it than this and the data are not available, but from my experiences I am 100% convinced that driving in Australia is more dangerous as a result of the lower speed limits.

Having suffered the absolute tedium of driving at 50kph on the Sydney urban motorways, with everyone rigidly staring at their speedo, I can only agree. Drivers seem to go to sleep.

[Esceptico]

Red Devil said:

Those who disagree with you could say the same about the one you linked to earlier. Have you seen the data and examined the underlying methodology? If not, why not? You can't have it both ways.

Not sure what point you are trying to make.
I did put a link to the study I referenced so that other posters could read it (and follow up on the research referenced in the link if they wanted). I only asked the other poster to do the same.