UK Report Shows Only 2% of Accidents Caused by Speeding

[Dan Friel]

I've just had a flick through the report that this article was based upon. It's apparent that the figure is actually 5% (when considering all accident), and the report itself states that this is one of the factors where under-reporting is a problem. As expected, it becomes a bigger factor with regards to fatals (it increases to 12%).

The majority of motorists think they're excellent (and therefore can travel at any speed), however, this ignores the fact that 98% of motorists are muppets, and don't know what they're doing (there's more than one moment that I've escaped from through luck rather than judgement). Being reliant on others when driving is a sure way to have a big accident. Speed limits are intended to help in providing consistency for all road users, which is why appropriate use of limits in the right areas is vital (we all know they aren't, but that's a different debate).

Edited by Dan Friel on Thursday 27th September 12:34

[900T-R]

Dan Friel said:

I' however, this ignores the fact that 98% of motorists are muppets, and don't know what they're doing (there's more than one moment that I've escaped from through luck rather than judgement).

Chicken and egg - treat people like idiots or little children and they'll become liable to behaving as such. That is the trend which needs to be reversed - both on our roads and in soeciety as a whole.

Edited by 900T-R on Thursday 27th September 12:40

[Dan Friel]

So what's the solution then? Not have reasonable laws that everyone should attempt to work within, and let everyone get on with it?

[Big Fat F'r]

CommanderJameson said:

Big Fat F'r said:

I’m not claiming its linear. I’m claiming that it’s riskier when you increase speed. For many complex reasons. But still riskier.
BFF

It is indeed riskier. And given that 70%-odd of motorists on the motorway clearly accept that risk (and, given my drive on the A1M yesterday, I'd say it's >80% in the bits where elephant racing doesn't artificially limit the cars) why not give the people what they're taking anyway, which is an increased limit of around 80-90MPH?

It's all very well saying "it increases risk" but the practical reality is that, on motorways at least, millions and millions of people routinely exceed the speed limit by a good 10MPH or more every single minute of every single day and do not crash.

When you say "why not give the people what they're taking", what do you mean.

I've never said that limits shouldn't be increased. I think some should. I also think some could do with reducing, but hey ho. I don't think there should be unlimited speed allowed.

My issue was with those who insist that increasing speed doesn't increase risk. I've always said that we should be working on managing that risk, not denying it exists.

BFF

[Major Bloodnok]

andmole said:

Dan Friel said:

I'm a little uncertain why someone's background affects the status of their postings? There's plenty of posters here who are clearly anti-camera and work towards their removal, but this doesn't devalue their contributions.. I'd suggest that having someone with knowledge of cameras is more benefical than a random punter.

In some circumstances your background can actually legally prevent you from participating in discussions, let alone trying to influence the outcome of those discussions. So yes, a persons background is relevant.

It's not relevant to the argument; it's only relevant to the person's chances of being prosecuted.

The background of the arguer is irrelevant to the argument, full stop. Invoking someone's background to argue against their point is ad hominem and is a logical fallacy. At best, someone's background will influence why that person argues that side and not the other; at worst it may provoke someone to "massage" the argument - *cough*creationists*cough* - in which case it is up to the other side to demonstrate that the argument has been massaged, not to just say "oh, he's a , therefore we don't trust the data". If someone can be shown to regularly tell porkies, then we're justified in not trusting the argument, but that's based on prior evidence of behaviour, and is nothing to do with that person's background.

[900T-R]

Dan Friel said:

So what's the solution then? Not have reasonable laws that everyone should attempt to work within, and let everyone get on with it?

Well, I don't think we need to specify every little detail of expected road behaviour, when what it all comes down to is rule number one 'you shall not do anything that is likely to endanger or unreasonably hinder others' (and incidentally, there's a lot of politically-induced rules and laws that have at best only a tenuous link to the above - which IMO should be removed ASAP). What we need is to ensure that people we let loose on our roads fully understand the implications and responsibilities of the above, accept that some will not have the moral and mental constitution to operate a motor vehicle in public traffic and prohibit them from doing so (selection at the gate if you will), and have people take full responsibility for their actions instead of suggesting they'll be alright as long as they conform to - for instance - arbitrary numbers on a stick.

[Big Fat F'r]

900T-R said:

Dan Friel said:

I' however, this ignores the fact that 98% of motorists are muppets, and don't know what they're doing (there's more than one moment that I've escaped from through luck rather than judgement).

Chicken and egg - treat people like idiots or little children and they'll become liable to behaving as such. That is the trend which needs to be reversed - both on our roads and in soeciety as a whole.

Edited by 900T-R on Thursday 27th September 12:40

True enough, treating everybody like children doesn't mean they are.

But treating everybody like responsible adults doens't mean they are either.

That's partly what is wrong with the oft repeated comment on here, along the lines of "we [drivers] slow down for hazards". Thats misleading, becasue only some drivers slow down for hazards, even when you treat them responsibly, not like children or idiots. So the ones that do slow down are not the problem, and shouldn't be used to judge the actions that are in place to deal with the ones who don't slow down for hazards.

BFF

[Big Fat F'r]

900T-R said:

Dan Friel said:

So what's the solution then? Not have reasonable laws that everyone should attempt to work within, and let everyone get on with it?

Well, I don't think we need to specify every little detail of expected road behaviour, when what it all comes down to is rule number one 'you shall not do anything that is likely to endanger or unreasonably hinder others' (and incidentally, there's a lot of politically-induced rules and laws that have at best only a tenuous link to the above - which IMO should be removed ASAP). What we need is to ensure that people we let loose on our roads fully understand the implications and responsibilities of the above, accept that some will not have the moral and mental constitution to operate a motor vehicle in public traffic and prohibit them from doing so (selection at the gate if you will), and have people take full responsibility for their actions instead of suggesting they'll be alright as long as they conform to - for instance - arbitrary numbers on a stick.

I agree with you, but what do we do until we get it (I think we can all agree we don’t have it yet – probably no where near) and having got it, how do you guard against it slipping.

I agree that it would be idealised for anyone to suggest that all road laws ensure good acceptable behaviour all the time in all circumstances, but the above suggestion is a bit idealised as well.

BFF

[andmole]

Major Bloodnok said:

andmole said:

Dan Friel said:

I'm a little uncertain why someone's background affects the status of their postings? There's plenty of posters here who are clearly anti-camera and work towards their removal, but this doesn't devalue their contributions.. I'd suggest that having someone with knowledge of cameras is more benefical than a random punter.

In some circumstances your background can actually legally prevent you from participating in discussions, let alone trying to influence the outcome of those discussions. So yes, a persons background is relevant.

It's not relevant to the argument; it's only relevant to the person's chances of being prosecuted.

The background of the arguer is irrelevant to the argument, full stop. Invoking someone's background to argue against their point is ad hominem and is a logical fallacy. At best, someone's background will influence why that person argues that side and not the other; at worst it may provoke someone to "massage" the argument - *cough*creationists*cough* - in which case it is up to the other side to demonstrate that the argument has been massaged, not to just say "oh, he's a , therefore we don't trust the data". If someone can be shown to regularly tell porkies, then we're justified in not trusting the argument, but that's based on prior evidence of behaviour, and is nothing to do with that person's background.

Completely and absolutely wrong. I only made this point because in the past I have been legally barred from taking part in discussions on some topics where I was deemed to have an interest. The fact that my contributions may have been relevant was not an issue, the mere fact that I held a certain position prevented my views being heard, because they were considered to be biased. Welcome to the world of elected local government!! I would never go so far as to ban people from speaking on any issue, but it is essential to know their position so that you can evaluate the validity or technical accuracy of their views, or if they are their own views or possibily the "company line".

I resigned by the way, years ago

[dcb]

Big Fat F'r said:

I’m not claiming its linear. I’m claiming that it’s riskier when you increase speed. For many complex reasons. But still riskier.
BFF

But a claimed increase in risk is hard to measure
in practice.

Much better to look at something that can be counted
like the numbers of killed and seriously injured.

I know in the German case, autobahn speeds have gone
up every year without fail for decades and those killed
and injured have gone *down* every year without fail
for decades.

That's based on a much bigger system than the UK
system, used by more people.

So while it may or may not be true that risk has
changed over the decades, the numbers of those actually
dying has gone down.

Traffic systems are full of complex non-intuitive results.
Laymen making intuitive jumps and unmeasureable
claims are doomed to failure.

All speed limits are there for political reasons,
not safety reasons.

[fluffnik]

Dan Friel said:

So what's the solution then? Not have reasonable laws that everyone should attempt to work within, and let everyone get on with it?

Blanket arbitrary speed limits are not reasonable laws.

Laws prohibiting reckless endangerment are.

Otherwise, yes, let everyone get on with it.

[fluffnik]

dcb said:

All speed limits are there for political reasons,
not safety reasons.

...and the nasty authoritarian type of politics at that.

Despite the evidence that higher speeds are entirely compatible with lower casualties we get lies and oppression from our political establishment...

They need to go, the whole sorry lot.

[delboy735]

If it were down to me:- ( which it isn't )

All single lane roads out of town boundaries, 70MPH
All Dual carriageways out of town boundaries, 80MPH
All motorways, Unlimited except when conditions require slower speeds...Fog, Rain,Snow etc
All Heavy goods vehicles, coaches, and anything towing to be banned from outside lane ( when there are three lanes or more )
In town, 30MPH absolute maximum.
Remove the majority of Traffic lights, and replace with roundabouts.At the end of roads meeting main roads, place yellow waffle grids, to allow cars to pull out and turn right.
Remove all speed cameras, except those proven ( with genuine statistics ) to save lives, and use all the money saved to put more traffic police out there catching Dumbass drivers.

Its not speed that kills, its moronic dumbass drivers.Everybody here see's them.Lets face it, if driver isn't wearing a seatbelt, then he doesn't care about himself/herself and family, so they sure as hell couldn't give a flying about anybody else.

Just seen 2 idiots tonight. In the space of 1 minute, I was walking home, cross a road at a roundabout junction, approx 100 yds after said roundabout is a pedestrian crossing, 2 cars come off roundabout, when a dicksplash in an Astra diesel decieds to overtake!!! WTF. Then I go round corner only to witness the self same manouvere by another dicksplash in a VW Polo diesel, both on single lane roads, in the middle of town. Where's BiB when you need them??

Ooooppps. Time to remove ones self from the soapbox. Sorry.

[Big Fat F'r]

dcb said:

All speed limits are there for political reasons,
not safety reasons.

In what way.

BFF

[GPSHead]

Big Fat F'r said:

dcb said:

All speed limits are there for political reasons,
not safety reasons.

In what way.

BFF

You've never seen such a limit then?

[CommanderJameson]

Big Fat F'r said:

dcb said:

All speed limits are there for political reasons,
not safety reasons.

In what way.

BFF

It's more politically and organisationally expedient to prosecute drivers who are over an arbitrary speed limit than it is to prosecute drivers who are actually doing something wrong.

Hence, speed limits are a political tool.

[Lostusernamedamn]

CommanderJameson said:

Big Fat F'r said:

dcb said:

All speed limits are there for political reasons,
not safety reasons.

In what way.

BFF

It's more politically and organisationally expedient to prosecute drivers who are over an arbitrary speed limit than it is to prosecute drivers who are actually doing something wrong.

Hence, speed limits are a political tool.

Yes, a tool implemented by idiots, enforced by (how shall I say this?) the "misguided" and believed by idiots. Time and time again the policy is shown to be flawed, but like cannon fodder, they keep coming back, with their weak excuses for retention and greater enforcement of the policy, only for later reasearch to prove them wrong again....

[fluffnik]

CommanderJameson said:

Big Fat F'r said:

dcb said:

All speed limits are there for political reasons,
not safety reasons.

In what way.

BFF

It's more politically and organisationally expedient to prosecute drivers who are over an arbitrary speed limit than it is to prosecute drivers who are actually doing something wrong.

Hence, speed limits are a political tool.

Convenient, but oppressive and devoid of justice.

[Big Fat F'r]

CommanderJameson said:

Big Fat F'r said:

dcb said:

All speed limits are there for political reasons,
not safety reasons.

In what way.

BFF

It's more politically and organisationally expedient to prosecute drivers who are over an arbitrary speed limit than it is to prosecute drivers who are actually doing something wrong.

Hence, speed limits are a political tool.

In what way. Yes, some drivers get prosecuted for exceeding limits that many agree with (you don't, fair enough, but many do).

Why and how is it a political tool. Expediency does not make it a political tool. So what does, and to what end.

BFF

[CommanderJameson]

Big Fat F'r said:

CommanderJameson said:

Big Fat F'r said:

dcb said:

All speed limits are there for political reasons,
not safety reasons.

In what way.

BFF

It's more politically and organisationally expedient to prosecute drivers who are over an arbitrary speed limit than it is to prosecute drivers who are actually doing something wrong.

Hence, speed limits are a political tool.

In what way. Yes, some drivers get prosecuted for exceeding limits that many agree with (you don't, fair enough, but many do).

Why and how is it a political tool. Expediency does not make it a political tool. So what does, and to what end.

BFF

It's politically much easier to say "we are going to criminalise behaviour X in the hope of preventing outcome Y" - especially when criminalising behaviour X is very amenable to automation, very easy to enforce, and just different enough from dealing with behaviour Z, which is the actual problem behaviour, that no-one notices. The political bit comes from not dealing with behaviour Z - in this case, bad driving - because doing that would mean that a lot of voters would receive an unpleasant wake-up call (i.e. three points and sixty quid) that their driving is shit. And let's face it, who'd vote for THAT?

And it looks like you're doing something to deal with undesired outcome Y! Bonus!

Edited by CommanderJameson on Monday 1st October 17:36