Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents
Discussion
or perhaps that should be speeding does not cause collisions. I have been riled on this again because there are calls to reduce the speed limit even further. http://www.courier.co.uk/double-horror-crash-A26-C...
The reality is that the speed limit has already been reduced from the NSL to 50 and now they want to reduce it even further. Of course I have driven along that stretch many times and it is twisty however of course 99.99% if not more manage to drive through it with out crashing. Whilst its easy to blame speed for the collision/accident it is of course a mistake by someone that causes it (well in most cases except when its deer related).
Accidents blamed on speed are caused by someoneone
- Driving beyond their ability
- Beyond the ability of the vehicle
- at a speed inappropriate for the conditions
- misjudging the speed of a vehicle.
The accidents are the fault of an arror of judgement, the speed may lead to consequential damage etc, but someone else could easily navigate the same piece of road at a higher speed with crashing.
On a similar point on the A22 northbound at Halland there is a speed camera. If speed camers work why around 200 yds up the road is it necessary to have one of those signs that flashes to warn you you are speeding?
The reality is that the speed limit has already been reduced from the NSL to 50 and now they want to reduce it even further. Of course I have driven along that stretch many times and it is twisty however of course 99.99% if not more manage to drive through it with out crashing. Whilst its easy to blame speed for the collision/accident it is of course a mistake by someone that causes it (well in most cases except when its deer related).
Accidents blamed on speed are caused by someoneone
- Driving beyond their ability
- Beyond the ability of the vehicle
- at a speed inappropriate for the conditions
- misjudging the speed of a vehicle.
The accidents are the fault of an arror of judgement, the speed may lead to consequential damage etc, but someone else could easily navigate the same piece of road at a higher speed with crashing.
On a similar point on the A22 northbound at Halland there is a speed camera. If speed camers work why around 200 yds up the road is it necessary to have one of those signs that flashes to warn you you are speeding?
The people who study the accidents, ie. police crash investigators etc. are actually very good at determining the root cause of a crash.
Very few are due to 'speeding' (ie. travelling above the posted speed limit for that particular stretch of road).
The wider public and many pressure groups however are not very good at all in realising what causes the majority of accidents.
Many of these pressure groups have vested interests in reducing speed limits, eg. because the road passes within proximity to their property and they wish to increase the value of their house for example.
Very few are due to 'speeding' (ie. travelling above the posted speed limit for that particular stretch of road).
The wider public and many pressure groups however are not very good at all in realising what causes the majority of accidents.
Many of these pressure groups have vested interests in reducing speed limits, eg. because the road passes within proximity to their property and they wish to increase the value of their house for example.
This bit of road is just a few miles from me, and I travel it often. It is quite obvious from the Courier report that speed had NOTHING to do with these accidents. If it was speed, and these cars hit head on ( as it appears from the picture of the Skoda ) then the damage would be far greater and there would have been serious injuries / loss of life. The road is , in the right conditions, capable of 70mph around most of the bends in an average car......the words "in the right conditions" is what this is all about. Take a wet road ( as there was last week, ) and people don't seem to know when to slow down a bit. Drivers need educating to adjust their driving to the conditions, not blanket speed reductions because a few people cannot read the road ahead. Regarding the A22 at Halland - I understand all the speed measures ( camera, flashing sign, bollards etc ) were all put in place at the request of a retired policeman who lives somewhere along that road - never heard of any accidents there
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If you hit a tree at 100mph the speed won't kill you. But the rapid deceleration from 100 to zero in a millisecond will get you every time.
If you'd been doing 10mph you wouldn't have been killed.In that case you're still part of the equation, the tree is still part of the equation, the rapid deceleration is still part of the equation. But the difference that has resulted in the fatality is the initial speed.
robinessex said:
Similar situation near me. 3 accidents in a year on NSL single carriageway road. Call for lower speed limit, so it's now 50mph. Except, ALL the accidents were head on's whilst overtaking. Nothing to do with speed.
People were overtaking because?They wanted to travel at a higher speed than others.
vonhosen said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If you hit a tree at 100mph the speed won't kill you. But the rapid deceleration from 100 to zero in a millisecond will get you every time.
If you'd been doing 10mph you wouldn't have been killed.In that case you're still part of the equation, the tree is still part of the equation, the rapid deceleration is still part of the equation. But the difference that has resulted in the fatality is the initial speed.
vonhosen said:
robinessex said:
Similar situation near me. 3 accidents in a year on NSL single carriageway road. Call for lower speed limit, so it's now 50mph. Except, ALL the accidents were head on's whilst overtaking. Nothing to do with speed.
People were overtaking because?They wanted to travel at a higher speed than others.
robinessex said:
vonhosen said:
robinessex said:
Similar situation near me. 3 accidents in a year on NSL single carriageway road. Call for lower speed limit, so it's now 50mph. Except, ALL the accidents were head on's whilst overtaking. Nothing to do with speed.
People were overtaking because?They wanted to travel at a higher speed than others.
It has something to do with the outcome too. The two ladies at Sainsbury's didn't die in their crash did they?
vonhosen said:
It has 'something' to do with it, because the reason they were on the other side of the road is because they 'wanted to go faster' than what was ahead of them.
So you always stay in lane 1 on the motorway, because you never "want to go faster" than the lorry ahead of you?And you always stay behind cyclists, because you never "want to go faster"?
Chrisgr31 said:
or perhaps that should be speeding does not cause collisions. I have been riled on this again because there are calls to reduce the speed limit even further. http://www.courier.co.uk/double-horror-crash-A26-C...
The reality is that the speed limit has already been reduced from the NSL to 50 and now they want to reduce it even further. Of course I have driven along that stretch many times and it is twisty however of course 99.99% if not more manage to drive through it with out crashing. Whilst its easy to blame speed for the collision/accident it is of course a mistake by someone that causes it (well in most cases except when its deer related).
Accidents blamed on speed are caused by someoneone
- Driving beyond their ability
- Beyond the ability of the vehicle
- at a speed inappropriate for the conditions
- misjudging the speed of a vehicle.
The accidents are the fault of an arror of judgement, the speed may lead to consequential damage etc, but someone else could easily navigate the same piece of road at a higher speed with crashing.
On a similar point on the A22 northbound at Halland there is a speed camera. If speed camers work why around 200 yds up the road is it necessary to have one of those signs that flashes to warn you you are speeding?
It doesn't matter what caused the collision an increase in speed increases the potential for damage as you have pointed out. So why the pointless post?The reality is that the speed limit has already been reduced from the NSL to 50 and now they want to reduce it even further. Of course I have driven along that stretch many times and it is twisty however of course 99.99% if not more manage to drive through it with out crashing. Whilst its easy to blame speed for the collision/accident it is of course a mistake by someone that causes it (well in most cases except when its deer related).
Accidents blamed on speed are caused by someoneone
- Driving beyond their ability
- Beyond the ability of the vehicle
- at a speed inappropriate for the conditions
- misjudging the speed of a vehicle.
The accidents are the fault of an arror of judgement, the speed may lead to consequential damage etc, but someone else could easily navigate the same piece of road at a higher speed with crashing.
On a similar point on the A22 northbound at Halland there is a speed camera. If speed camers work why around 200 yds up the road is it necessary to have one of those signs that flashes to warn you you are speeding?
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
It has 'something' to do with it, because the reason they were on the other side of the road is because they 'wanted to go faster' than what was ahead of them.
So you always stay in lane 1 on the motorway, because you never "want to go faster" than the lorry ahead of you?And you always stay behind cyclists, because you never "want to go faster"?
There may have been other factors too, like my lack of observation.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I often overtake cyclists and lorries. If I have an accident doing that, then speed will have a factor, because it was my desire to want to do a higher speed than them that started the process that led to the accident.
There may have been other factors too, like my lack of observation.
That's a bit of a stretchThere may have been other factors too, like my lack of observation.
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
It has 'something' to do with it, because the reason they were on the other side of the road is because they 'wanted to go faster' than what was ahead of them.
So you always stay in lane 1 on the motorway, because you never "want to go faster" than the lorry ahead of you?And you always stay behind cyclists, because you never "want to go faster"?
I didn't say that I never want to go faster than others, just that I recognise there are greater risks in overtakes resulting from a desire to go faster than others & also that can be a contributory factor in collisions/severity of outcomes.
I suppose if every factor remained the same - driving skill level, conditions, vehicle etc etc - then the faster you go the more likely an accident is to occur and the more severe the outcome may be. This is probably pretty much indisputable unless you argue that driving slowly causes some drivers to lose concentration and paradoxically more likely to have an accident.
The trouble is the focus seems to mainly be on speed with regard to road safety rather than all the other factors that are important.
The trouble is the focus seems to mainly be on speed with regard to road safety rather than all the other factors that are important.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff