how much of this is true and how much smoke vs mirrors
Discussion
http://www.pacts.org.uk/docs/pdf-bank/speed_and_sa...
It uses a number of fixed sites to extrapolate data everywhere.
Guess it depends where the fixed sites are?
It uses a number of fixed sites to extrapolate data everywhere.
Guess it depends where the fixed sites are?
So just on the first graph , set of figures 300,000 in 85 to 1,270,000 in 2009 how many extra cars on the road 2009 v 1985 will give you a figure in real data as to whether the speeding is coming down or going up.... + the fact of amount of scameras and technology to catch speeders must have increased by 100's of % so smoke and mirrors is my conclusion.
Although the mean speed of cars is probably coming down (imo due to congestion and increasing addition of "traffic calming" things like traffic lights on roundabouts etc) i think peak speeds are up (modern cars are very easy to drive fast!) Everyone i know does about 80-85mph on a clear motorway these days, it's just that "clear motorways" are becoming the exception in the mids/south. Also, drivers have learnt to spot cameras and slow down accordingly, i even see people do over 100 between gantries on the M25, then nail the brakes down to about 75 under each gantry (modern cars are not so accelerative that this is easily possible).
I'm really not sure i believe the increased compliance with the 30mph limit either? Just driving around suggests that people are not doing 30 in a 30 (if you actually do say 29-32mpg, see how quickly you build up a nice little que of tailgaters behind you!) Also, councils have put in many more features like speed bumps etc to slow drivers in 30mph limits etc. (again, which people rush between braking for each one).
Then we get to the thorny question of the actual relationship between accidients and speed. Yes, if you're going faster and have an accident it will be worse, but the real relationship is between driver awaness/concentration and accidents, rather the pure linear speed of the vehicle etc.
Finally, the data is not actually statistically robust, because too few people are killed under circumastances where just excess speed was the primary cause to be able to correlate the effects.
Generally most studies have suggested that we drive to a level of percieved risk rather than a set speed. i.e. we accelerate to a speed, under the prevailing circumstances that our brain sees as "sensible". Obviously this varries between different people, but without a doubt modern cars lull their drivers into going faster that they ever would have in a car built in 1985. However, that "sensible speed", although higher than in 1985, is still sensible, due to improvements in brake/tyre and dynamic capability of the average car. In 1985, performing an emergency stop halfway around a wet off camber bend, even from 30mph took some considerable skill. Now? Well just nail the brake pedal to the floor, a little lamp winks on the dash to let you know the cars just given you a skills boost and you're stopped with no drama whatsoever!
I'm really not sure i believe the increased compliance with the 30mph limit either? Just driving around suggests that people are not doing 30 in a 30 (if you actually do say 29-32mpg, see how quickly you build up a nice little que of tailgaters behind you!) Also, councils have put in many more features like speed bumps etc to slow drivers in 30mph limits etc. (again, which people rush between braking for each one).
Then we get to the thorny question of the actual relationship between accidients and speed. Yes, if you're going faster and have an accident it will be worse, but the real relationship is between driver awaness/concentration and accidents, rather the pure linear speed of the vehicle etc.
Finally, the data is not actually statistically robust, because too few people are killed under circumastances where just excess speed was the primary cause to be able to correlate the effects.
Generally most studies have suggested that we drive to a level of percieved risk rather than a set speed. i.e. we accelerate to a speed, under the prevailing circumstances that our brain sees as "sensible". Obviously this varries between different people, but without a doubt modern cars lull their drivers into going faster that they ever would have in a car built in 1985. However, that "sensible speed", although higher than in 1985, is still sensible, due to improvements in brake/tyre and dynamic capability of the average car. In 1985, performing an emergency stop halfway around a wet off camber bend, even from 30mph took some considerable skill. Now? Well just nail the brake pedal to the floor, a little lamp winks on the dash to let you know the cars just given you a skills boost and you're stopped with no drama whatsoever!
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 17th November 13:19
Max_Torque said:
Although the mean speed of cars is probably coming down (imo due to congestion and increasing addition of "traffic calming" things like traffic lights on roundabouts etc) i think peak speeds are up (modern cars are very easy to drive fast!) Everyone i know does about 80-85mph on a clear motorway these days, it's just that "clear motorways" are becoming the exception in the mids/south. Also, drivers have learnt to spot cameras and slow down accordingly, i even see people do over 100 between gantries on the M25, then nail the brakes down to about 75 under each gantry (modern cars are not so accelerative that this is easily possible).
I'm really not sure i believe the increased compliance with the 30mph limit either? Just driving around suggests that people are not doing 30 in a 30 (if you actually do say 29-32mpg, see how quickly you build up a nice little que of tailgaters behind you!) Also, councils have put in many more features like speed bumps etc to slow drivers in 30mph limits etc. (again, which people rush between braking for each one).
Then we get to the thorny question of the actual relationship between accidients and speed. Yes, if you're going faster and have an accident it will be worse, but the real relationship is between driver awaness/concentration and accidents, rather the pure linear speed of the vehicle etc.
Finally, the data is not actually statistically robust, because too few people are killed under circumastances where just excess speed was the primary cause to be able to correlate the effects.
Generally most studies have suggested that we drive to a level of percieved risk rather than a set speed. i.e. we accelerate to a speed, under the prevailing circumstances that our brain sees as "sensible". Obviously this varries between different people, but without a doubt modern cars lull their drivers into going faster that they ever would have in a car built in 1985. However, that "sensible speed", although higher than in 1985, is still sensible, due to improvements in brake/tyre and dynamic capability of the average car. In 1985, performing an emergency stop halfway around a wet off camber bend, even from 30mph took some considerable skill. Now? Well just nail the brake pedal to the floor, a little lamp winks on the dash to let you know the cars just given you a skills boost and you're stopped with no drama whatsoever!
My motorway and DC driving under NSL suggests that a great many car drivers have slowed below 70. I suggest that the cost of fuel is an additional disincentive to fast driving.I'm really not sure i believe the increased compliance with the 30mph limit either? Just driving around suggests that people are not doing 30 in a 30 (if you actually do say 29-32mpg, see how quickly you build up a nice little que of tailgaters behind you!) Also, councils have put in many more features like speed bumps etc to slow drivers in 30mph limits etc. (again, which people rush between braking for each one).
Then we get to the thorny question of the actual relationship between accidients and speed. Yes, if you're going faster and have an accident it will be worse, but the real relationship is between driver awaness/concentration and accidents, rather the pure linear speed of the vehicle etc.
Finally, the data is not actually statistically robust, because too few people are killed under circumastances where just excess speed was the primary cause to be able to correlate the effects.
Generally most studies have suggested that we drive to a level of percieved risk rather than a set speed. i.e. we accelerate to a speed, under the prevailing circumstances that our brain sees as "sensible". Obviously this varries between different people, but without a doubt modern cars lull their drivers into going faster that they ever would have in a car built in 1985. However, that "sensible speed", although higher than in 1985, is still sensible, due to improvements in brake/tyre and dynamic capability of the average car. In 1985, performing an emergency stop halfway around a wet off camber bend, even from 30mph took some considerable skill. Now? Well just nail the brake pedal to the floor, a little lamp winks on the dash to let you know the cars just given you a skills boost and you're stopped with no drama whatsoever!
BTW, could you please explain: "modern cars are not so accelerative that this is easily possible" above?
Streaky
If they're selecting one of the sites near me I noticed that the Scameraship is declaring that there have been six fewer deaths / accidents since the speed limit was reduced and the cameras were installed.
So it's got nothing to do with the £1 Million bridge that allowed pedestrians and horse riders etc to cross the road safely which was put up just after the cameras went up, oh no.
So it's got nothing to do with the £1 Million bridge that allowed pedestrians and horse riders etc to cross the road safely which was put up just after the cameras went up, oh no.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff