UK Report Shows Only 2% of Accidents Caused by Speeding

[Bing o]

900T-R said:

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.

But not a way to create a little cottage industry of Labour voters...

[vonhosen]

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???

And they do it because the benefits are said to outweigh the risks for emergency service purposes. Like I said, if they don't want me to use exemptions, all they have to do is repeal them & I'll observe the speed limit for emergency service purposes as well.

[Big Fat F'r]

Bing o 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.

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.

But these idiots are out there. I see them every day. So first I want a way to try and stop them. You can't say that they will drive safely if left to select their own speeds, becasue they aren't doing. So I want to state exactly what a maximum is assessed at (just like many other risk assessments do) and then enforce it.

Bing o said:

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.

I would also like to see that dealt with. Seperately. Unfortunately I think we've allowed those with vested interests to confuse the issue by linking the too. How many times have we heard that maximum speed limits and their enforcement are no good because some people drive slowly, unsafely. Totally different issue, but cleverly linked by some.

Bing o said:

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.

I 100% agree, but I also happen to believe that a maximum speed is part of that risk assessment.

Bing o said:

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.

At the end of the day, we all want better roads, and better drivers on them. How we get there, and what the problems are, is another thing.

BFF

[900T-R]

Bing o said:

900T-R said:

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.

But not a way to create a little cottage industry of Labour voters...

Edited for accuracy - all current mainstream parties in Europe fimly sitting on the authoritarian side of things (and pandering to the will of pressure groups) as they are...

[Big Fat F'r]

900T-R said:

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)?

Everyone has a vested interest.

BFF

[vonhosen]

tigger1 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.

If we could get people driving in a manner that didn't cause accidents then the speed that the accident DIDN'T happen would not contribute to anything.

Tailgating
Poor observation
Too fast for conditions (NOT ALWAYS speeding - although sometimes it will be)

If we were all great drivers we wouldn't need speed limits, but the reality is that we are not & are never likely to be. Just like we are not all likely to be great golfers, artists, plumbers ec etc.

[s2art]

Big Fat F'r said:

I 100% agree, but I also happen to believe that a maximum speed is part of that risk assessment.


BFF

It could be, if that speed was set rationally/scientifically and could be varied depending on all the other relevant factors. Which is why plod used to show more discretion.

[900T-R]

vonhosen said:

If we were all great drivers we wouldn't need speed limits, but the reality is that we are not & are never likely to be. Just like we are not all likely to be great golfers, artists, plumbers ec etc.

I'm not a great cook, DIY'er, housekeeper, pushbike rider, garden tractor operator,... but I've managed not to kill myself or others doing all that without state interference nonetheless, thanksverymuch

[vonhosen]

Nick_F said:

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.

To prove the speeding prior to the collision you'd have to measure it & that it isn't done by & large. People are rather guarded about admitting speeding just prior to a collision.

[Big Fat F'r]

Bing o said:

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.

Possibly (there again, possibly not). But is that enough benefit measured against the cost.

Bing o said:

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.

There are many drivers that drive too fast.

Some do it because they have no idea. Some do it becasue they genuinely don't give a toss. Some do it because they think they are better than they actually are.

Some of the above definitely modify their behaviour where limits are enforced. I've seen it happen. Not all of the time, and not everyone, but enough. To me that has to be better than saying we will allow anyone to travel at any speed at any time.

There are not enough Trafpol, and never will be, to deal with every single case of too high a speed. But other methods are available.

Don't confuse speed limit enforcement with the actual figure the limit is set at. That is a totally different issue. Thats why I'm happy with the principle of setting limits, and if we have that, then we must have enforcement.

BFF

[Bing o]

Big Fat F'r said:

But these idiots are out there. I see them every day. So first I want a way to try and stop them. You can't say that they will drive safely if left to select their own speeds, becasue they aren't doing. So I want to state exactly what a maximum is assessed at (just like many other risk assessments do) and then enforce it.

You see them. You see them because you are a human being.

Speed cameras don't. Scammers don't.

That is why you see them everyday. Because road policy has failed.

Bring back trafpol - let them take into account someone's driving. If we must have cameras, put them all over every BiB's car so you can see the tailgating, the aggression, the cutting up. And then take them to Court - DWDCA enough people and the message will get across.

Combined with public service films to re-edukate the masses as to how the HC works, and we might be getting somewhere.

[Steven Toy]

The authoritarian viewpoint is that all human beings are essentially irresponsible and selfish or just incompetent when left to their own devices. Authoritarians assert the need for strictly enforced rules to make everyone not behave in an anti-social manner.

I take a more libertarian standpoint, that being that the overwhelming majority of drivers are able to judge appropriate speeds for themselves. The minority that either cannot or will not can be dealt with accordingly by real policemen.

The majority should not have to suffer unreasonably low speeed limits on account of this minority.

AS I've said before, speed limit enforcement is an exercise in damage limitation not prevention with the former coming at the expense of the latter.

Edited by Steven Toy on Wednesday 19th September 17:06

[Big Fat F'r]

Bing o said:

Big Fat F'r said:

But these idiots are out there. I see them every day. So first I want a way to try and stop them. You can't say that they will drive safely if left to select their own speeds, becasue they aren't doing. So I want to state exactly what a maximum is assessed at (just like many other risk assessments do) and then enforce it.

You see them. You see them because you are a human being.

Speed cameras don't. Scammers don't.

That is why you see them everyday. Because road policy has failed.

Bring back trafpol - let them take into account someone's driving. If we must have cameras, put them all over every BiB's car so you can see the tailgating, the aggression, the cutting up. And then take them to Court - DWDCA enough people and the message will get across.

Combined with public service films to re-edukate the masses as to how the HC works, and we might be getting somewhere.

But I want all of that as much as you. I just also want a simple way to catch those that drive too fast.

Going back to my point about not confusing enforcement with the limit it's set at, how would you deal with the known problem we have of some people driving too fast. You must know deep down that we genuinely can't have BiB on every street corner. So if you accept that some people are driving too fast, and if you accept that can't have a human presence, what is wrong with a camera, to catch those who go too fast. The ones that you would see and say yourself that something should be done about them, even though the only thing you are basing it on is his speed.

BFF

[s2art]

Big Fat F'r said:

Bing o said:

Big Fat F'r said:

But these idiots are out there. I see them every day. So first I want a way to try and stop them. You can't say that they will drive safely if left to select their own speeds, becasue they aren't doing. So I want to state exactly what a maximum is assessed at (just like many other risk assessments do) and then enforce it.

You see them. You see them because you are a human being.

Speed cameras don't. Scammers don't.

That is why you see them everyday. Because road policy has failed.

Bring back trafpol - let them take into account someone's driving. If we must have cameras, put them all over every BiB's car so you can see the tailgating, the aggression, the cutting up. And then take them to Court - DWDCA enough people and the message will get across.

Combined with public service films to re-edukate the masses as to how the HC works, and we might be getting somewhere.

But I want all of that as much as you. I just also want a simple way to catch those that drive too fast.

Going back to my point about not confusing enforcement with the limit it's set at, how would you deal with the known problem we have of some people driving too fast. You must know deep down that we genuinely can't have BiB on every street corner. So if you accept that some people are driving too fast, and if you accept that can't have a human presence, what is wrong with a camera, to catch those who go too fast. The ones that you would see and say yourself that something should be done about them, even though the only thing you are basing it on is his speed.

BFF

How did we cope before cameras? The evidence doesnt show any improvement with cameras everywhere, if anything the long term trend towards improved safety has flattened out with the intro of speed cameras.

[Peter Ward]

Big Fat F'r said:

Bing o said:

Big Fat F'r said:

But these idiots are out there. I see them every day. So first I want a way to try and stop them. You can't say that they will drive safely if left to select their own speeds, becasue they aren't doing. So I want to state exactly what a maximum is assessed at (just like many other risk assessments do) and then enforce it.

You see them. You see them because you are a human being.

Speed cameras don't. Scammers don't.

That is why you see them everyday. Because road policy has failed.

Bring back trafpol - let them take into account someone's driving. If we must have cameras, put them all over every BiB's car so you can see the tailgating, the aggression, the cutting up. And then take them to Court - DWDCA enough people and the message will get across.

Combined with public service films to re-edukate the masses as to how the HC works, and we might be getting somewhere.

But I want all of that as much as you. I just also want a simple way to catch those that drive too fast.

Going back to my point about not confusing enforcement with the limit it's set at, how would you deal with the known problem we have of some people driving too fast. You must know deep down that we genuinely can't have BiB on every street corner. So if you accept that some people are driving too fast, and if you accept that can't have a human presence, what is wrong with a camera, to catch those who go too fast. The ones that you would see and say yourself that something should be done about them, even though the only thing you are basing it on is his speed.

BFF

Most of the people I see going too fast in the way you describe are in town centres and residential areas. Neither type of location is generally overpopulated with cameras. To take the approach you suggest would require a wholesale relocation of cameras from cash-generating to safety-enforcing locations.

[Nick_F]

Peter Ward said:

Most of the people I see going too fast in the way you describe are in town centres and residential areas. Neither type of location is generally overpopulated with cameras. To take the approach you suggest would require a wholesale relocation of cameras from cash-generating to safety-enforcing locations.

Big Fat F'in chance, to coin a phrase.

[andmole]

Big Fat F'r said:

900T-R said:

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)?

Everyone has a vested interest.

BFF

Everyone, which by definition includes you then. And me before you say it, I'm honest enough to admit it.

My vested interest is that I want to take responsibilty for my own actions.

[Bing o]

Big Fat F'r said:

The ones that you would see and say yourself that something should be done about them, even though the only thing you are basing it on is his speed.

BFF

I'm usually over taking them...

[Bing o]

andmole said:

My vested interest is that I want to take responsibilty for my own actions.

Shame on you. Much better to be told what to think, eat, drink, do.

Afterall, nanny state knows best.

I have no desire to end up in an RTA. My driving will reflect that.

[dcb]

Bing o said:

Shame on you. Much better to be told what to think, eat, drink, do.

Afterall, nanny state knows best.

I have no desire to end up in an RTA. My driving will reflect that.

Good news. I recommend looking out the windscreen,
not down at the dials.

The authoritarian types on this thread are
making themselves look like clueless newbies by their
simplistic stance and their persistence.

They'd be a lot better off if they collected some
statistics to demonstrate the veracity of
their point of view. Oddly enough, this never occurs.

Is the bloke that shouts the loudest in the pub
the one that's always correct ? I think not.

Driving carefully isn't the same as driving slowly.

Never has been, never will, however much the current
set of politicians tell us.

Any amount of carefully collected statistics have
been waved in front of "The authoritarians" over the
years to show that traffic systems are complex
and full of non-intuitive effects.

Yet still they put forward their point of view.

It's only because of the freedom of t'Internet they
are allowed to keep posting.