UK Report Shows Only 2% of Accidents Caused by Speeding

[alphadog]

fluffnik said:

Big Fat F'r said:

Does the stopping distance increase. Yes.
Does the impact speed increase. Yes.
Does the effectiveness of vision reduce. Yes.
etc, etc, etc.

Does the risk of an accident actually happening increase?

Not necessarily at all, not always significantly.

If conditions allow you to maintain a decent volume of space around your vehicle then it is possible to drive quicker and accommodate items in BFF's post. On motorways or similar, not round town as there's a good deal else going on, of course.

Travelling on a motorway in a group at around the same speed increases the risk of an altercation with an adjacent vehicle - it isn't as simple as just keeping back from the vehicle in front.

[TripleS]

skymaster said:

vonhosen said:

Lostusernamedamn said:

vonhosen said:

Lostusernamedamn said:

Shock horror what a surprise (not). Every now and then this is revealed, but the revenue camera spin meisters resume their bullsh1t propaganda in the hope the hope the public has a short memory.

Because it's not only about speed as a cause of collisions, it's the effect of speed as a contributory factor in incidence & severity as well. It's not going to go away.

It won't go away because it's a good earner, like the London congestion charge which doesn't reduce congestion. "Incidence" and "severity" are just weasel words to clutch at straws as a tenuous means of justification. The elderly, a group featuring highly in the accident statistics, feature very low down on the "caught on camera" statistics. It's quality of driving that counts, speed is a minor factor - go on any advanced driving course and you'll see that speed limits are a minor consideration in terms of safe driving - your're not taught to use your speedo as a safe guide, you're taught to look at things going on (mainly) in front of you outside the vehicle. Speed limits are rarely the guide for safe driving, in fact they're so often too low as to create a loss of respect.

Being able to adhere to a speed limit figures very highly in Police driving courses. You are at times allowed to drive at what you judge a speed safe for the circumstances without reference to the limit & at other times you have to display that you can also adhere to the limit.
You could do it for your DSA test, you have to be able to do it afterwards as well.
I don't consider anyone an advanced driver, who can't adhere to limits.

But Von surely all those police personal taking the courses are putting lives at risk by driving " without reference to the limit" while in training???

I expect they are, a bit, but IMHO it's part of a necessary and justifiable policy, and so long as it's done with proper supervision I feel there's an overall benefit in having them do it. If there's a real job to be done, and there sure is, people must be given the skills and resources to do it.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Big Fat F'r]

fluffnik said:

Big Fat F'r said:

Does the stopping distance increase. Yes.
Does the impact speed increase. Yes.
Does the effectiveness of vision reduce. Yes.
etc, etc, etc.

Does the risk of an accident actually happening increase?

Not necessarily at all, not always significantly.

But it can increase the risk of it happening (less time for you and them to avoid the collision, less time to see or anticipate your/their actions, etc) and it can increase the severity (higher impact speed, etc).

It is always riskier, sometimes considerably, it’s just whether or not that risk can be managed. Unfortunately for a lot of drivers it can’t be, often because they are not as good as they think they are.

BFF

[s2art]

Big Fat F'r said:

fluffnik said:

Big Fat F'r said:

Does the stopping distance increase. Yes.
Does the impact speed increase. Yes.
Does the effectiveness of vision reduce. Yes.
etc, etc, etc.

Does the risk of an accident actually happening increase?

Not necessarily at all, not always significantly.

But it can increase the risk of it happening (less time for you and them to avoid the collision, less time to see or anticipate your/their actions, etc) and it can increase the severity (higher impact speed, etc).

It is always riskier, sometimes considerably, it’s just whether or not that risk can be managed. Unfortunately for a lot of drivers it can’t be, often because they are not as good as they think they are.

BFF

Nope. Been through this before, several times. The research shows that risk does not increase linearly with speed. Its much more complex.
Common sense will tell you the same thing, imagine driving at 50MPH on a deserted motorway; most peoples mind will start to wander, or in some cases switch off.

[Big Fat F'r]

safespeed said:

Big Fat F'r said:

TripleS said:

EU_Foreigner said:

anything that moves is at risk. The issue is wether by moving faster, that the risk is increased

I suspect that risk is increased relatively little, for fairly large (though not unlimited) excesses over the speed limit.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Does the stopping distance increase. Yes.
Does the impact speed increase. Yes.
Does the effectiveness of vision reduce. Yes.
etc, etc, etc.

It's no surprise you want to claim that it doesn't increase risk, but you would be better off claiming you can manage the increased risk. That may not be true either, but at least you could try and justify it.

BFF

Nope, that's just complete rubbish. It might seem 'obvious' but it isn't a useful description of driving.

What isn't?

safespeed said:

We need drivers going slowest where risks are closest and highest.

Absolutely, I don’t think anyone would argue with that.

safespeed said:

With only 2% of crashes involving a vehicle exceeding the speed limit (involving a driver over 25), clearly where risks are closest and highest we don't drive anywhere near the speed limit.

Apart from all those occasions we all see every day. I appreciate you may not see them, but are you denying that others do.

safespeed said:

On the other hand slowing down on a clear road with no hazard in sight serves no useful purpose whatsoever.

Well, it may do if you accept that you may not be able to assess the conditions as well as you think you can, you may not be as good a driver as you think you are, or the hazards may not be as easily identifiable as you hope they are.

It may be that you are that good. Unfortunately many others aren’t. If you accept that, then you must be saying either:

1)let everyone drive at any speed, and if the ones that can’t handle it have an accident, then lets worry about it.

2)everyone will suddenly become capable of handling these higher speeds if you just let them.

Many find the first point morally reprehensible, and you’ve certainly failed to prove the second.

BFF

[Steven Toy]

We know what frequently happends to lorry drivers at a constant 56 mph....

[Big Fat F'r]

s2art said:

Big Fat F'r said:

fluffnik said:

Big Fat F'r said:

Does the stopping distance increase. Yes.
Does the impact speed increase. Yes.
Does the effectiveness of vision reduce. Yes.
etc, etc, etc.

Does the risk of an accident actually happening increase?

Not necessarily at all, not always significantly.

But it can increase the risk of it happening (less time for you and them to avoid the collision, less time to see or anticipate your/their actions, etc) and it can increase the severity (higher impact speed, etc).

It is always riskier, sometimes considerably, it’s just whether or not that risk can be managed. Unfortunately for a lot of drivers it can’t be, often because they are not as good as they think they are.

BFF

Nope. Been through this before, several times. The research shows that risk does not increase linearly with speed. Its much more complex.
Common sense will tell you the same thing, imagine driving at 50MPH on a deserted motorway; most peoples mind will start to wander, or in some cases switch off.

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

Common sense will tell you the same thing, imagine driving at 50mph in a busy built up area with restricted views, narrow lanes, cars parked up; most people would not take in as much, have less time to stop, and would have a higher impact speed.

These examples are easy, innit.

BFF

[s2art]

Big Fat F'r said:

s2art said:

Big Fat F'r said:

fluffnik said:

Big Fat F'r said:

Does the stopping distance increase. Yes.
Does the impact speed increase. Yes.
Does the effectiveness of vision reduce. Yes.
etc, etc, etc.

Does the risk of an accident actually happening increase?

Not necessarily at all, not always significantly.

But it can increase the risk of it happening (less time for you and them to avoid the collision, less time to see or anticipate your/their actions, etc) and it can increase the severity (higher impact speed, etc).

It is always riskier, sometimes considerably, it’s just whether or not that risk can be managed. Unfortunately for a lot of drivers it can’t be, often because they are not as good as they think they are.

BFF

Nope. Been through this before, several times. The research shows that risk does not increase linearly with speed. Its much more complex.
Common sense will tell you the same thing, imagine driving at 50MPH on a deserted motorway; most peoples mind will start to wander, or in some cases switch off.

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

Nope. The research says something else. It says it varies by road and conditions. Which is why the Italian authorities recommended a rise to 150KPH for their motorways, it was safer than 130KPH.

[TripleS]

Big Fat F'r said:

TripleS said:

EU_Foreigner said:

anything that moves is at risk. The issue is wether by moving faster, that the risk is increased

I suspect that risk is increased relatively little, for fairly large (though not unlimited) excesses over the speed limit.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Does the stopping distance increase. Yes.
Does the impact speed increase. Yes.
Does the effectiveness of vision reduce. Yes.
etc, etc, etc.

It's no surprise you want to claim that it doesn't increase risk, but you would be better off claiming you can manage the increased risk. That may not be true either, but at least you could try and justify it.

BFF

I'm not making a claim or asserting anything. I'm telling you what I believe the situation is, based on long experience (passed driving test 50 years ago today), taking an interest in the subject and trying to evaluate what I see happening. Of course if you can produce reliable statistics to prove something different, that ought to be superior to my informal observations and gut feelings, but until you can do that, or produce some other convincing argument I'm not giving ground and conceding anything.

It is true, as you say, that increased speed means increased stopping distance, and that it means increased impact speed, but only to the extent that the speed is still there at the moment of impact. That, of course, seems fairly obvious and perhaps rather pedantic, but we sometimes talk as if we're overlooking that fact. In reality I think drivers are not doing a bad job of choosing appropriate speeds. Obviously there are mistakes being made, and sometimes we leave ourselves a bit short of safety margins, but on the whole I think drivers deserve rather more credit than they get from people who share your viewpoint. Let's look at some of the things that are being done right, and build on those, rather than pouring scorn on skill levels across the board.

Quite clearly you have some interest and expertise in this general subject, but, as I've asked before, it would be appreciated if you would give us some information about your work. Are you a Police Officer, an advanced driving trainer, or what? Plenty of other people on here, including numerous Police Officers do that, so why not you?

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Big Fat F'r]

s2art said:

Big Fat F'r said:

s2art said:

Big Fat F'r said:

fluffnik said:

Big Fat F'r said:

Does the stopping distance increase. Yes.
Does the impact speed increase. Yes.
Does the effectiveness of vision reduce. Yes.
etc, etc, etc.

Does the risk of an accident actually happening increase?

Not necessarily at all, not always significantly.

But it can increase the risk of it happening (less time for you and them to avoid the collision, less time to see or anticipate your/their actions, etc) and it can increase the severity (higher impact speed, etc).

It is always riskier, sometimes considerably, it’s just whether or not that risk can be managed. Unfortunately for a lot of drivers it can’t be, often because they are not as good as they think they are.

BFF

Nope. Been through this before, several times. The research shows that risk does not increase linearly with speed. Its much more complex.
Common sense will tell you the same thing, imagine driving at 50MPH on a deserted motorway; most peoples mind will start to wander, or in some cases switch off.

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

Nope. The research says something else. It says it varies by road and conditions. Which is why the Italian authorities recommended a rise to 150KPH for their motorways, it was safer than 130KPH.

Nope, thats selective satistics.

It would be as bad as saying that because the British Local Councils have reduced limits, and said that its safer, it definitely is.

BFF

[s2art]

Big Fat F'r said:

s2art said:

Big Fat F'r said:

s2art said:

Big Fat F'r said:

fluffnik said:

Big Fat F'r said:

Does the stopping distance increase. Yes.
Does the impact speed increase. Yes.
Does the effectiveness of vision reduce. Yes.
etc, etc, etc.

Does the risk of an accident actually happening increase?

Not necessarily at all, not always significantly.

But it can increase the risk of it happening (less time for you and them to avoid the collision, less time to see or anticipate your/their actions, etc) and it can increase the severity (higher impact speed, etc).

It is always riskier, sometimes considerably, it’s just whether or not that risk can be managed. Unfortunately for a lot of drivers it can’t be, often because they are not as good as they think they are.

BFF

Nope. Been through this before, several times. The research shows that risk does not increase linearly with speed. Its much more complex.
Common sense will tell you the same thing, imagine driving at 50MPH on a deserted motorway; most peoples mind will start to wander, or in some cases switch off.

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

Nope. The research says something else. It says it varies by road and conditions. Which is why the Italian authorities recommended a rise to 150KPH for their motorways, it was safer than 130KPH.

Nope, thats selective satistics.

It would be as bad as saying that because the British Local Councils have reduced limits, and said that its safer, it definitely is.

BFF

Nope. The research is robust, repeatable and has indeed been replicated in several countries. It was also the basis of how our limits were set before the cretins interfered and made things less safe.

[Bing o]

Big Fat F'r said:

s2art said:

Big Fat F'r said:

fluffnik said:

Big Fat F'r said:

Does the stopping distance increase. Yes.
Does the impact speed increase. Yes.
Does the effectiveness of vision reduce. Yes.
etc, etc, etc.

Does the risk of an accident actually happening increase?

Not necessarily at all, not always significantly.

But it can increase the risk of it happening (less time for you and them to avoid the collision, less time to see or anticipate your/their actions, etc) and it can increase the severity (higher impact speed, etc).

It is always riskier, sometimes considerably, it’s just whether or not that risk can be managed. Unfortunately for a lot of drivers it can’t be, often because they are not as good as they think they are.

BFF

Nope. Been through this before, several times. The research shows that risk does not increase linearly with speed. Its much more complex.
Common sense will tell you the same thing, imagine driving at 50MPH on a deserted motorway; most peoples mind will start to wander, or in some cases switch off.

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

Common sense will tell you the same thing, imagine driving at 50mph in a busy built up area with restricted views, narrow lanes, cars parked up; most people would not take in as much, have less time to stop, and would have a higher impact speed.

These examples are easy, innit.

BFF

True, Big, but then only an idiot would do that. 30 in that case is probably too quick, but many will do that legally, because they aren't breaking the law so it's safe, innit.

Risk assessment is so much more than looking at a number on a pole - one stretch or road may have a 60 section all the way along it, yet it may be riskier to do 40 through one section than 80 on another bit of the same road.

Most people on here would not advocate removing/not enforcing 30 zones, most are concerned with keeping our arterial routes running safely, efficiently and quickly.

I'd rather the scammers were redeployed into accident investigation and gathering charges of DWDCA to discourage people from driving like alcoholic Stevie Wonders.

[Big Fat F'r]

TripleS said:

Big Fat F'r said:

TripleS said:

EU_Foreigner said:

anything that moves is at risk. The issue is wether by moving faster, that the risk is increased

I suspect that risk is increased relatively little, for fairly large (though not unlimited) excesses over the speed limit.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Does the stopping distance increase. Yes.
Does the impact speed increase. Yes.
Does the effectiveness of vision reduce. Yes.
etc, etc, etc.

It's no surprise you want to claim that it doesn't increase risk, but you would be better off claiming you can manage the increased risk. That may not be true either, but at least you could try and justify it.

BFF

I'm not making a claim or asserting anything. I'm telling you what I believe the situation is, based on long experience (passed driving test 50 years ago today), taking an interest in the subject and trying to evaluate what I see happening. Of course if you can produce reliable statistics to prove something different, that ought to be superior to my informal observations and gut feelings, but until you can do that, or produce some other convincing argument I'm not giving ground and conceding anything.

It is true, as you say, that increased speed means increased stopping distance, and that it means increased impact speed, but only to the extent that the speed is still there at the moment of impact. That, of course, seems fairly obvious and perhaps rather pedantic, but we sometimes talk as if we're overlooking that fact. In reality I think drivers are not doing a bad job of choosing appropriate speeds. Obviously there are mistakes being made, and sometimes we leave ourselves a bit short of safety margins, but on the whole I think drivers deserve rather more credit than they get from people who share your viewpoint. Let's look at some of the things that are being done right, and build on those, rather than pouring scorn on skill levels across the board.
Quite clearly you have some interest and expertise in this general subject, but, as I've asked before, it would be appreciated if you would give us some information about your work. Are you a Police Officer, an advanced driving trainer, or what? Plenty of other people on here, including numerous Police Officers do that, so why not you?

Best wishes all,
Dave.

I accept that a lot of drivers do a reasonable job of choosing appropriate speeds. Unfortunately I know that a lot don’t.

Would it matter if increasing the speed didn’t increase the risk? No it wouldn’t. But I think it does, as do you, and Von, and many others (yes, I accept some think it increases the speed keeps the risk the same, each to his own as we’ve said before). So I would rather we try and assess how we can manage that increased risk.

Because unfortunately, there are many drivers that cannot drive as well as some on here claim. For example, you may say that you can drive perfectly safe on B-roads, always selecting an appropriate speed but having it unlimited, well within your capabilities, which you’ve assessed accurately. Trouble is there are many that can’t.

How we deal with the ones who can’t drive that well, or won’t drive that well (2 different types). Leaving it up to them isn’t the answer, unless you genuinely believe that they would all become safe drivers if all constraints were taken off them.

I don’t believe that, although I understand why people suggest it’s true.

BFF

[Big Fat F'r]

s2art said:

Big Fat F'r said:

s2art said:

Big Fat F'r said:

s2art said:

Big Fat F'r said:

fluffnik said:

Big Fat F'r said:

Does the stopping distance increase. Yes.
Does the impact speed increase. Yes.
Does the effectiveness of vision reduce. Yes.
etc, etc, etc.

Does the risk of an accident actually happening increase?

Not necessarily at all, not always significantly.

But it can increase the risk of it happening (less time for you and them to avoid the collision, less time to see or anticipate your/their actions, etc) and it can increase the severity (higher impact speed, etc).

It is always riskier, sometimes considerably, it’s just whether or not that risk can be managed. Unfortunately for a lot of drivers it can’t be, often because they are not as good as they think they are.

BFF

Nope. Been through this before, several times. The research shows that risk does not increase linearly with speed. Its much more complex.
Common sense will tell you the same thing, imagine driving at 50MPH on a deserted motorway; most peoples mind will start to wander, or in some cases switch off.

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

Nope. The research says something else. It says it varies by road and conditions. Which is why the Italian authorities recommended a rise to 150KPH for their motorways, it was safer than 130KPH.

Nope, thats selective satistics.

It would be as bad as saying that because the British Local Councils have reduced limits, and said that its safer, it definitely is.

BFF

Nope. The research is robust, repeatable and has indeed been replicated in several countries. It was also the basis of how our limits were set before the cretins interfered and made things less safe.

Thats certainly what you claim. Amazingly, those with different statistics claim theirs are correct as well. It's bizarre really, how come they don't know that yours is the correct analysis and interpretation.

BFF

[900T-R]

Big Fat F'r said:

Thats certainly what you claim. Amazingly, those with different statistics claim theirs are correct as well. It's bizarre really, how come they don't know that yours is the correct analysis and interpretation.

BFF

Because, unlike Safespeed, they have a vested interest (keeping the automated speeding ticket industry alive)?

[s2art]

Big Fat F'r said:

s2art said:

Big Fat F'r said:

s2art said:

Big Fat F'r said:

s2art said:

Big Fat F'r said:

fluffnik said:

Big Fat F'r said:

Does the stopping distance increase. Yes.
Does the impact speed increase. Yes.
Does the effectiveness of vision reduce. Yes.
etc, etc, etc.

Does the risk of an accident actually happening increase?

Not necessarily at all, not always significantly.

But it can increase the risk of it happening (less time for you and them to avoid the collision, less time to see or anticipate your/their actions, etc) and it can increase the severity (higher impact speed, etc).

It is always riskier, sometimes considerably, it’s just whether or not that risk can be managed. Unfortunately for a lot of drivers it can’t be, often because they are not as good as they think they are.

BFF

Nope. Been through this before, several times. The research shows that risk does not increase linearly with speed. Its much more complex.
Common sense will tell you the same thing, imagine driving at 50MPH on a deserted motorway; most peoples mind will start to wander, or in some cases switch off.

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

Nope. The research says something else. It says it varies by road and conditions. Which is why the Italian authorities recommended a rise to 150KPH for their motorways, it was safer than 130KPH.

Nope, thats selective satistics.

It would be as bad as saying that because the British Local Councils have reduced limits, and said that its safer, it definitely is.

BFF

Nope. The research is robust, repeatable and has indeed been replicated in several countries. It was also the basis of how our limits were set before the cretins interfered and made things less safe.

Thats certainly what you claim. Amazingly, those with different statistics claim theirs are correct as well. It's bizarre really, how come they don't know that yours is the correct analysis and interpretation.

BFF

The experts do. That was the research the TRL used when making recommendations.

[Bing o]

Big Fat F'r said:

Because unfortunately, there are many drivers that cannot drive as well as some on here claim. For example, you may say that you can drive perfectly safe on B-roads, always selecting an appropriate speed but having it unlimited, well within your capabilities, which you’ve assessed accurately. Trouble is there are many that can’t.

How we deal with the ones who can’t drive that well, or won’t drive that well (2 different types). Leaving it up to them isn’t the answer, unless you genuinely believe that they would all become safe drivers if all constraints were taken off them.

I don’t believe that, although I understand why people suggest it’s true.

BFF

Those two types are the 40 mph plodders - well, they are just shit drivers - by removing limits they may harbour less resentment to faster drivers, and help them to pass.

And there are the psychos who stuff it into hedges, trees etc. Are you telling me speed cameras/limits are really helping at the moment? 59 in a 60 into a hairpin ain't speeding, but it ain't gonna get you round the corner either. Worryingly they are clever enough to see a big yellow box and slow down.

Let trafpol capture the feckless and the dangerous, and let the rest of us make our own decisions regarding our own safety and that of others - we seem to manage well in all other daily tasks without widespread death and destruction.

[900T-R]

Big Fat F'r said:

Trouble is there are many that can’t.

Risk assessment is a task that belongs to the driver. Period. Those who can't or won't make a proper job of it don't belong on the road.

Over the course of a hundred years, humans as a whole actually adapted rather well to the complex task of operating a motor vehicle in traffic - the vast majority of us do it every day, and still the risk of a traffic fatality is several times lower than dying from an accident around the home (which is perceived the safest place for us to be) or through a medical fault, and considering that a large proportion of the remaining accidents was going to happen no matter what, and another huge bite could be taken out of the stats if we got around to updating our infrastructure to mirror current traffic (leaving 50t artics to mingle with 1t passenger cars as a matter of course is as stupid and irresponsible as mixing cars with children on tricycles - as everyone seems to assume the current levels of HGV traffic are an unavoidable aspect of our economical structure, we should have separated the traffic streams on main transit routes at least, ages ago) - how draconic do you want to get to 'manage' the risk that's left? Do you want a situation like The Netherlands - 8.8m automated speeding tickets a year on a car park of 7.2m? You could as well put CCTV everywhere and fine me whenever I try to change a light bulb using a slightly dodgy ladder...

Big Fat F'r said:

unless you genuinely believe that they would all become safe drivers if all constraints were taken off them.

At least we would see a halt in the ever sliding standards of driving if we make the driver 100% responsible for his/her actions again. Taking responsibility from people has never, ever resulted in them behaving more responsibly. That goes against all psychological reasoning.

After all, he's the only one who's got all the information to assess a situation; road signage et al is meant to give that information where it isn't immediately obvious from the road user's perspective.

I'd go as far as to say everyone who does maintain that taking responsibility (and the liberty that comes with it) from people makes a society safer, has ulterior motives.

[Nick_F]

If only 2% of collisions have 'speed in excess of the posted limit' as a cause, then, whichever way you skin it, you will only ever prevent 2% of collisions by policing speed.

If - are there any figures? - one or more of the parties involved in the remaining 98% of collisions happens to be travelling at a 'speed in excess of the posted limit' without this having been reported as one of the causes of the collision then you ought to also be able to reduce the severity of those collisions by policing speed. But you will not prevent them happening because 'speed in excess of the posted limit was not their cause.

So, what percentage of collisions involve someone travelling in excess of the speed limit but do not have that fact reported as all or part of the cause? 90%? 50%? 5%? How many collisions a year would have been less severe if all involved had been at or under the speed limit?

I'd be willing to bet that the answer is tiny - if someone was speeding then that will be reported as one of the causes, wouldn't it - so that leaves us back at 2%: policing speed will not make any difference to anything more that that.

[900T-R]

Bing o said:

Let trafpol capture the feckless and the dangerous, and let the rest of us make our own decisions regarding our own safety and that of others - we seem to manage well in all other daily tasks without widespread death and destruction.

Common sense, really.