RAC Say Speeding is More Dangerous Than Drink Driving

[AL666]

After having just read an article in the Grimsby Evening Telegraph saying that we should have more speed cameras, and cameras to catch people on their phones, I noticed that they quoted an RAC statistic which stated that "Speeding causes three times as many accidents as drink driving but has become socially acceptable".

Surely not, I thought; The Telegraph must have made a mistake, but no, after a quick search I've found that the RAC are actually saying this, http://www.racnews.co.uk/index.asp?PageID=24&Y...

I've not seen anything about it on here, but who found those statistics? They must be wrong!


Anyone?


AL

[Jasandjules]

No idea where they get the stats from, but let's face it, if plod aren't stopping people for Drink Driving except at Chrimbo, then the convictions will go down, yet Mr Gatso appears all over the place......

Still, if I was an RAC member at this point I would be cancelling my account.

[mark69sheer]

If the RAC are saying that speeding is more dangerous than drink driving then they have just blown their credibility alltogether.


And the figures from their polls.

Looks suspiciously like an office poll to me.

Looks like the politically correct zombies have started to reach the top of the ladder in every organisation now.

God help us.

[bryan35]

speeding is more dangerous than absolutely everything I should think, to hear them speak.

I wonder how many times people break the speed limit each day?. If I was the sort of maniac to do this illegal act I would reckon maybe 20 times a day. Multiply that by how many driver there are........ erm 28 million, so you get about 500,000,000 illegal acts of speeding per day. So, that's ..... 365 x 500,000,000 a year = approx 190,000,000,000
190 billion acts of speeding a year. 3% of deaths caused by this, so 3% of about 3500 is 100.

so, for every 1 billion 900 million acts of lawlessness, you may get 1 death.

as I say, Maniacs the lot of 'em!

[gog]

So, accidents caused by drivers exceeding the speed limits are, actually, less than those caused by drunks (7258 against 7697).
Drivers who where NOT exceeding the speed limits caused more than twice the accidents of both the above groups (16080).
RAC are clearly wrong and according to the statistics we should be drink driving and speeding, as it causes less accidents than driving under the speed limits!
Statistical nonsense.

[shack55]

It's all good science so you would have to go some with your guess work to beat it, see here: Kloeden & McLean

[Lostusernamedamn]

The best science, with very great detail, including an excellent forum (with an open invitation to challenge any facts, figures etc on the site) can be found here:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/

It's clear the RAC are a bit "silly".

[r5gttgaz]

I remember the Grimsby evening telegraph reporting that a kid had held on to one of the railway barriers at Littlefield Lane and when they went up he was thrown 20ft in the air.

[BiggusLaddus]

shack55 said:

It's all good science so you would have to go some with your guess work to beat it, see here: Kloeden & McLean

Not really playing fair there are you?

That link is comparing the accident rate to the speed of vehicle. No one hear is arguing that in a controlled environment, with no other factors that the risk of an accident does not rise as vehicle speed rises.

What everyone else on this thread apart from you is arguing against, is that exceeding an arbitrarily chosen number has any inherent danger.

If speed limits (the actual numbers, not the principle) were socially acceptable, then perhaps speeding wouldn't be.

[HarryW]

Not content with lining their own pockets at the sell off, it's statements such as this that make me seriously consider my 20+ year membership to the RAC, very nearly straw/camel imho.

[Vodka Margarine]

I like their service but I don't think I will be renewing my membership now.

[Mg6b]

Lostusernamedamn said:

The best science, with very great detail, including an excellent forum (with an open invitation to challenge any facts, figures etc on the site) can be found here:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/

It's clear the RAC are a bit "silly".

Its only the best science if it fits in with what you personally believe and desire!

Personally, I think a lot of safespeed data can be rebutted in exactly the same way that safespeed tries to rebut other science and opinion.

[Jasandjules]

Mg6b said:

Personally, I think a lot of safespeed data can be rebutted in exactly the same way that safespeed tries to rebut other science and opinion.

Well, then do so, in order that further evidence to completely confirm his position can be found.

Personally, I think anyone who drives on the road and pays attention would be clear that simply exceeding an aribtrary limit would not, in itself, cause an accident.

[Jasandjules]

Mg6b said:

Personally, I think a lot of safespeed data can be rebutted in exactly the same way that safespeed tries to rebut other science and opinion.

Well, then do so, in order that further evidence to completely confirm his position can be found.

Personally, I think anyone who drives on the road and pays attention would be clear that simply exceeding an aribtrary limit would not, in itself, cause an accident.

[alphadog]

Jasandjules said:

Mg6b said:

Personally, I think a lot of safespeed data can be rebutted in exactly the same way that safespeed tries to rebut other science and opinion.

Well, then do so, in order that further evidence to completely confirm his position can be found.

Personally, I think anyone who drives on the road and pays attention would be clear that simply exceeding an aribtrary limit would not, in itself, cause an accident.

I suppose it all depends on what you experience out there day in day out on the roads. Personally Safespeed's stuff is a lot closer to what I have experienced out there - especially from the good old days of doing up to 80K miles a year. Most of this was long distance on motorways and trunk roads. I do feel some merit on keeping speeds down in built up areas, though.

To my mind, the main problem comes from tarring all roads (no pun intended) with the same brush - applying daft 50 limits to good rural roads, and enforcing the motorway speed limit in places. Just shows how out-of-touch with reality some so-called experts are!

[Highway61]

Lostusernamedamn said:

The best science, with very great detail, including an excellent forum (with an open invitation to challenge any facts, figures etc on the site) can be found here:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/

It's clear the RAC are a bit "silly".

You are obviously a little deluded, there is very little science to be found there.

[s2art]

Highway61 said:

Lostusernamedamn said:

The best science, with very great detail, including an excellent forum (with an open invitation to challenge any facts, figures etc on the site) can be found here:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/

It's clear the RAC are a bit "silly".

You are obviously a little deluded, there is very little science to be found there.

Do you have reading difficulties? Lots of links to stuff like the TRL research.

[VictorMeldrew]

s2art said:

Highway61 said:

Lostusernamedamn said:

The best science, with very great detail, including an excellent forum (with an open invitation to challenge any facts, figures etc on the site) can be found here:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/

It's clear the RAC are a bit "silly".

You are obviously a little deluded, there is very little science to be found there.

Do you have reading difficulties? Lots of links to stuff like the TRL research.

No, just a troll. No profile details = no real interest in cars, and no opinion worth listening to. Probably a Brake member on a windup mission.

[oldsoak]

I just can't seem to get excited over a report that only took into consideration the views of just 2,029 of the country's drivers....
When a survey comes along that polls ALL of us then that would warrant some interest...IMPO of course.

[Einion Yrth]

RAC said:

We believe the Government needs to educate motorists that such measures are in place to protect, not inconvenience them.

I, personally, need to be convinced that the protection is greater than the inconvenience. It could be a hard sell.