The reason driving faster is more dangerous
Discussion
CrutyRammers said:
If only there were actual statistics showing how speed related to actual accidents. Then we wouldn't have to write long posts full of assumptions.
The State and its supporters will always tell you how much more serious the incident (I prefer this to accident, because as has been said the word accident suggests unavoidability and lack of blame) will be at higher speed.True, but not having the incident in the first place would be a step in the right direction. And not many incidents occur because of excess speed (relative to whatever limit happens to be in force).
Pete317 said:
Serious question - what makes you think that there's any similarity between driving a car on a public road, and playing a computer game where you constantly have hazards flying at you from all directions at a higher rate than the human mind is capable of processing?
Have a think about that the next time you're driving down the road.
Who are you asking?Have a think about that the next time you're driving down the road.
Pete317 said:
Serious question - what makes you think that there's any similarity between driving a car on a public road, and playing a computer game where you constantly have hazards flying at you from all directions at a higher rate than the human mind is capable of processing?
Have a think about that the next time you're driving down the road.
Where is the serious question? I only see a comment that tries to suggest that I said driving a car was like playing a computer game. I gave two examples of activities (nothing to do with driving) where increased speed and complexity leads to greater mistakes or errors. Why didn't you accuse me of saying that driving was like playing tennis? Or perhaps you can come up with an example of some human activity where giving people more complex tasks leads to a lower error rate?Have a think about that the next time you're driving down the road.
Esceptico said:
Pete317 said:
Serious question - what makes you think that there's any similarity between driving a car on a public road, and playing a computer game where you constantly have hazards flying at you from all directions at a higher rate than the human mind is capable of processing?
Have a think about that the next time you're driving down the road.
Where is the serious question? I only see a comment that tries to suggest that I said driving a car was like playing a computer game. I gave two examples of activities (nothing to do with driving) where increased speed and complexity leads to greater mistakes or errors. Why didn't you accuse me of saying that driving was like playing tennis? Or perhaps you can come up with an example of some human activity where giving people more complex tasks leads to a lower error rate?Have a think about that the next time you're driving down the road.
If that wasn't the case, serious accidents would probably be orders of magnitude more frequent than the once in a thousand year events, which they are for the average driver.
Drivers, by and large, make judgements according to things like visibility, road width, amount of traffic and pedestrians/cyclists etc, exercising greater caution when in situations where things can quickly develop, and, believe it or not, actually slowing down when unsure or they feel the need to make some extra time.
You talk about people making more mistakes at speed, in almost the same breath as talking about people pulling out of junctions in front of you - seemingly ignoring the fact that the person making the mistake of pulling out in front of you was doing zero mph just prior to that.
ETA: it's not the number of hazards, but rather the magnitude of the danger it poses
Edited by Pete317 on Thursday 12th May 23:59
Pete317 said:
<snip>
I would suggest that, except in exceptional circumstances, hazards on the road are by and large few and far between - well within the capability of any driver to process, provided they're not too inattentive.
If that wasn't the case, serious accidents would probably be orders of magnitude more frequent than the once in a thousand year events, which they are for the average driver.
Shame the DVLA/DSA, the driver development organisations and the emergency services think otherwise isn't it ...I would suggest that, except in exceptional circumstances, hazards on the road are by and large few and far between - well within the capability of any driver to process, provided they're not too inattentive.
If that wasn't the case, serious accidents would probably be orders of magnitude more frequent than the once in a thousand year events, which they are for the average driver.
Dunning-Kruger / stage 1 of 4 again ...
In my opinion, rather than speed limits there should be speed recommendations as both excessively high or low speed for the given conditions can both result in equally destructive accidents given the relative speed will be the same, therefore energy of the collision will be the same. This is the case for multi vehicle collisions.
For single vehicle incidents one must determine the appropriate speed for the road and conditions in question, this could be influenced by the speed recommendation sign. Other than mechanical failure and spontaneous events such as Bambi getting arouaed and attempting to mount the front of you car it generally just natural selection kicking in as people in hi viz have prevented is course earlier in life.
Unfortunately this system would not work in all cases as you will always have outliers such as drink drivers, mentally slower people (this group would also include those elderly individuals who are not confident driving.)
While I do not have any firm evidence for results of my approach, an experiment over a few months in various areas could provide evidence. At the very worst it would result it some incidents which would in turn make others more aware and force them to reassess their speed to prevent them having an incident.
One massive catch is that no money would be made directly for the central honey pot but people would get to work earlier, get more done, make more money for themselves and their firm and ultimately pay more tax therefore making the central honey pot larger that what a few speed cameras would do.
For single vehicle incidents one must determine the appropriate speed for the road and conditions in question, this could be influenced by the speed recommendation sign. Other than mechanical failure and spontaneous events such as Bambi getting arouaed and attempting to mount the front of you car it generally just natural selection kicking in as people in hi viz have prevented is course earlier in life.
Unfortunately this system would not work in all cases as you will always have outliers such as drink drivers, mentally slower people (this group would also include those elderly individuals who are not confident driving.)
While I do not have any firm evidence for results of my approach, an experiment over a few months in various areas could provide evidence. At the very worst it would result it some incidents which would in turn make others more aware and force them to reassess their speed to prevent them having an incident.
One massive catch is that no money would be made directly for the central honey pot but people would get to work earlier, get more done, make more money for themselves and their firm and ultimately pay more tax therefore making the central honey pot larger that what a few speed cameras would do.
Esceptico said:
It means that if you start out trying to prove something you can invent numbers to make it work!
Which is exactly the thinking that landed us with blanket 50 zones in Derbyshire - politicians tried to prove speed was dangerous and manipulated stats until people (including you by the sounds of it), started to believe their waffle...Esceptico said:
Choosing to use risk based on risk per second but keeping that risk the same at higher speeds means that you are assuming it is safer the faster you go. Hardly an unbiased assumption.
No, you're right. It was biased against my point - it is actually way more dangerous to drive at 10 or 20 mph on a motorway than 60, but if we adjust for that then my point is far more firmly made.Esceptico said:
Risk per metre travelled would be unbiased.
if you're going to state opinion as fact, please back up your reasoning. I admitted that my numbers were estimates as it served to highlight a point, kindly do the same if you're making assumptions.Esceptico said:
But even then making up numbers is pointless because you can make them up to prove whatever you want. Research of accident statistics show an increase is risk with absolute speed but also relative speed above the speed limit (ie the difference between the person speeding and the majority of traffic). Hardly surprising as speed differences mean passing more cars and a greater potential for errors of judgement by the person speeding or the person being passed.
Or being passed by more cars - as per the previous example of 10 or 20mph.What I'm getting at here, is that every single speed limit in the country is an approximation of factors, some of which are relevant to the actual safe speed that any one car can travel, but others of which are politically motivated. When people start believing the utter crap that is spouted by most politicians / civil servants and stop assessing the individual situation on the individual factors, then driving standards go down and accidents go up. Your clear obsession with speed limits has the RISK to make you a more dangerous driver than if you were concentrating on the important variables in driving at any point in time. To name a few:
1. Visibility
2. Weather
3. Road surface
4. Car condition
5. Fatigue / chemical impairment / driver distraction
6. Other traffic density
7. Other traffic behaviour
8. Pedestrian type / density
Etc etc etc.
How can any of those factors be taken into account by a sheet of red and white painted metal on top of a pole?
Edited by LeftmostAardvark on Friday 13th May 05:44
LeftmostAardvark said:
1. Visibility
2. Weather
3. Road surface
4. Car condition
5. Fatigue / chemical impairment / driver distraction
6. Other traffic density
7. Other traffic behaviour
8. Pedestrian type / density
Etc etc etc.
How can any of those factors be taken into account by a sheet of red and white painted metal on top of a pole?
They can't. Of course they can't. Why would you expect anything else? 2. Weather
3. Road surface
4. Car condition
5. Fatigue / chemical impairment / driver distraction
6. Other traffic density
7. Other traffic behaviour
8. Pedestrian type / density
Etc etc etc.
How can any of those factors be taken into account by a sheet of red and white painted metal on top of a pole?
Speed limits are a very blunt instrument but nothing else is available at this stage.
singlecoil said:
They can't. Of course they can't. Why would you expect anything else?
Speed limits are a very blunt instrument but nothing else is available at this stage.
Actually, there are a few things available. Better driver training, cultural understanding of consequences and responsibility, proactive and community-accepted policing, greater risk-awareness and assessment developed from an early age in schools and by responsible parents, better road design etc.Speed limits are a very blunt instrument but nothing else is available at this stage.
Of course, these are harder to do (and less financially rewarding to interested parties) than stick a random number on top of a pole and fine anyone for going over it...
LeftmostAardvark said:
singlecoil said:
They can't. Of course they can't. Why would you expect anything else?
Speed limits are a very blunt instrument but nothing else is available at this stage.
Actually, there are a few things available. Better driver training, cultural understanding of consequences and responsibility, proactive and community-accepted policing, greater risk-awareness and assessment developed from an early age in schools and by responsible parents, better road design etc.Speed limits are a very blunt instrument but nothing else is available at this stage.
any practical suggestions? Didn't think so
Derek Smith said:
Esceptico said:
I've only recently ventured onto this part of PH. I expected plenty of hate for cameras and defense of speeding but wasn't prepared for some of the bizarre claims being made, such as the speed limit not having any relationship to the dangers of the road. Such claims seem to defy basic physics and my own experience of driving/riding for 30 odd years. It would also make all advanced training (which focuses on identifying and managing hazards) wrong.
I suggest you look at the history of speed limits and they way limits are chosen for various roads. It is all very well using 'your own experience' but that's not necessarily correct. Chat to any group of drivers and you will get differing opinions.
Speed limits don't quite come into the definition of arbitrary, but it is close. Very close. In other words, they often bare no relationship to the number/type of hazards present. I am certain I am not unique in knowing of locations where speed limits have been imposed solely to save on signage.
There is also a pot of speed limits: 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 and national speed limit. So what about a road that is safe at 59?
Today I drove along a dead straight length of road, for over a mile, that had a 40mph speed limit. There were no turnings, no pedestrians, few hazards.
There are also speed limits imposed for social reasons, not to mention those that are imposed politically.
The claim that speed limits have a direct relationship to the number of hazards is truly bizarre. One only has to drive a few miles to realise this.
You suggest that all advanced driving focuses on hazards. I'm not sure that is correct. Police driver training, at least in my time, concentrated on systemised driving, with safety and smoothness following on from there.
However I'm not sure how speed limits being imposed for reasons other than safety would make any form of advanced training wrong.
The relaxation of national guidelines in favour of allowing local authorities to do their own thing has resulted in limits which are driven by dogma rather than objectivity. The result is a change in limit simply due to crossing the border from one county to another - https://goo.gl/maps/5K7KiZWMMQw
It is hardly any wonder that people are disrespectful of limits when there is such inconsistencies.
And then there is the truly baffling - https://goo.gl/maps/z64C5itjTYE2
Hint. Look at the other side of the signs.
CrutyRammers said:
If only there were accurate, unbiased statistics showing how speed related to actual accidents. Then we wouldn't have to write long posts full of assumptions.
Fixed that for you. The fact is many of these stats are subjective; if someone is speeding and they crash, was it purely because they were driving above some arbitrary limit, driving above the safe limit for the road or was it an unrelated problem such as lack of concentration? Would a better driver have had the same accident if they drove at the same speed?cmaguire said:
Esceptico, what is it that you want from this.
What is it you want other drivers or the State to do?
This is the question I'd like to see answered.What is it you want other drivers or the State to do?
All I see is someone determined to come on a forum for motoring enthusiasts and bang on about "speed kills". Perhaps it's just trolling by the brain washed, I find it pitiful that people gain enjoyment from deliberately provoking and angering others. Perhaps the OP has lost a loved one to a road accident if so, he/she has my condolences and whilst I understand the desire to 'do something', I'd hope that in a similar situation I'd be more realistic about speeding and its effects. Perhaps there is another motivation. I'm keen to know.
Speed doesn't kill. There is nothing whatsoever wrong or dangerous or unsafe with exceeding an arbitrary number, if done carefully, in the right place and in the right conditions (for example on a good dry motorway with light traffic ). Millions of Britains do it every day and the number of accidents caused as a result is negligible. Do not confuse "wrong, dangerous or unsafe" with "illegal".
Inappropriate speed can kill. You won't find anyone here condoning racing past the school gates at chuck out time, or driving at high speed on ice through a shopping precinct.
As Derek has said, limits very often have little to do with safety. Therefore arbitrary enforcement of limits has little to do with safety. It follows naturally that the argument that speed enforcement is linked to safety is flawed and can never be won.
The arguments in your original post can be countered very simply and with a single statement: If all you assert is true, how come the roads with the highest limits (motorways) are also the safest? These are also the roads where drivers most regularly exceed the posted limits and by the largest amount. It is not uncommon to see the majority of traffic cruising safely at 10 to 15mph over the posted limit and yet no fluffy bunnies die.
So please, before you deal with any of the above, what's your agenda? Are you here to troll? Or do you actually think you will change anyone's behaviour with your posts?
Mr2Mike said:
Fixed that for you. The fact is many of these stats are subjective; if someone is speeding and they crash, was it purely because they were driving above some arbitrary limit, driving above the safe limit for the road or was it an unrelated problem such as lack of concentration? Would a better driver have had the same accident if they drove at the same speed?
Poor driving causes incidents.Exceeding the limit is not poor driving per se. It becomes poor driving if you are a poor driver.
mikeveal said:
...arbitrary enforcement of limits has little to do with safety. It follows naturally that the argument that speed enforcement is linked to safety is flawed and can never be won...
Whether that's true or not, one thing that is true is that the people who impose the speed limits don't need to win the argument, the limits are already there, they carry the force of law and they aren't going away. So not only do they not need to win the argument, the whole concept of argument makes no sense in this context.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff