The reason driving faster is more dangerous
Discussion
I've only recently ventured onto this part of PH. I expected plenty of hate for cameras and defense of speeding but wasn't prepared for some of the bizarre claims being made, such as the speed limit not having any relationship to the dangers of the road. Such claims seem to defy basic physics and my own experience of driving/riding for 30 odd years. It would also make all advanced training (which focuses on identifying and managing hazards) wrong.
I've set out what I see as the argument and evidence for the relationship between speed and risk of crashing.
1. First point is that calling crashes "accidents" is very misleading. Crashes are not generally caused by acts of God - almost all crashes are caused by human error. Yes there will be the odd crash because of an unforeseen blow out and the like but the vast majority of crashes are because of driving mistakes. I would split driver error into three main categories:
a) Observation / anticipation errors - failure to read the road and anticipate what is going to happen next (either through not paying attention and/or poor skills and/or slow reactions) - eg not seeing someone coming from the right when turning left and pulling into their path
b) Errors of judgement - failure to make the right decision eg continuing to drive at 70 on the motorway in a thunderstorm
and aqua planning as a result
c) Errors in controlling the car eg not braking hard enough, not swerving around an obstacle, target fixation
Of course, poor driving can exhibit one, two or all three of these at once.
2. The rate of error depends upon a number of factors eg if you are tired you are likely to make more mistakes. However, looking at the first two categories: errors of observation and judgement, how often you make a mistake will be related to how many times you need to make an important observation or make an important decision. This is where the complexity of the road and number of hazards plays a key role. On a straight, empty motorway in the day then there are few if any hazards (something that demands your attention and a correct decision). Consequently the risk of driving on such roads even for poor drivers is low. Increasing speed should also not increase the risk (at least to a measurable amount). On the other hand, driving in town mostly demands constant attention and decisions eg people pulling out at junctions, on coming traffic on your side of the road as they go around parked cars, etc. Increasing the number of hazards, increases the number of opportunities for humans to screw up and given the law of large numbers, eventually someone will make an error that leads to a crash. Where does speed play a role? The faster you drive the greater the demands put on your powers of observation and ability to make the correct judgements. Increasing the difficulty of the task increases the number of errors. This is evident in every other area of life eg look at computer games that rely on reaction speed - as you progress through the game it gets harder as you have to deal with more obstacles at a quicker pace, the early screens at the slow tempo are easy but you die when the pace hots up. Or take tennis. Watch Wimbledon. Do servers get lots of aces on their first serve hit at 140 or on the second serve hit at 100? It is the first serve because the returner has less time to act correctly and get his racquet on the ball. Increasing the speed limit in town from 30 to 40 would inevitably lead to more errors and more errors will lead to more crashes.
3. As well as increasing the number of errors, additional speed will also lead to more crashes because of the third category of error - driver input. Put simply, the faster you are travelling when you are called upon to take action to avoid a crash (brake, swerve, etc) the greater the skill and the faster the action required to do so successfully. Clearly for a given level of skill the higher the speed then the more likely a "situation" will lead to a crash, rather than a near miss.
4. Lastly, the faster you are travelling then the more kinetic energy you have and the greater destructive potential your vehicle has. All else being equal a crash from a higher initial speed will have more serious consequences for yourself and third parties.
In summary, crashes are mainly caused by driver error. The rate of error increases as the difficulty of the task increases.
Roads with more hazards put greater demands on drivers and so they make more errors. Increasing speed also increases difficulty and increases the error rate. Increasing speed on roads with more hazards should show a steeper increase in errors than on roads with few hazards (this is borne out by research). Increasing speed increases driver input error and also increases the severely of crashes. Roads with lots of hazards (eg urban roads) are more inherently dangerous than roads with few hazards eg motorways,
dual carriageways (in terms of consequences, although your risk of a crash on the motorway is lower but the consequences could be more severe as you are travelling faster). A direct correlation exists between speed and risk for crashes for all roads. The strength of that correlation is directly related to the number of hazards. To reduce the number of crashes to an acceptable level whilst trying to keep traffic moving it is therefore appropriate to have different speed levels (via limits) for different roads. None of the preceding is dependent upon what limits society chooses. It only states the obvious that higher limits will inevitably lead to more crashes. How many more crashes and the impact of such crashes are dependent on lots of other factors. Whether additional crashes are acceptable for the benefit of higher limits is a political decision.
No doubt the speeding apologists will come up with nonsense objections rather than trying to deal with each point above.
I've set out what I see as the argument and evidence for the relationship between speed and risk of crashing.
1. First point is that calling crashes "accidents" is very misleading. Crashes are not generally caused by acts of God - almost all crashes are caused by human error. Yes there will be the odd crash because of an unforeseen blow out and the like but the vast majority of crashes are because of driving mistakes. I would split driver error into three main categories:
a) Observation / anticipation errors - failure to read the road and anticipate what is going to happen next (either through not paying attention and/or poor skills and/or slow reactions) - eg not seeing someone coming from the right when turning left and pulling into their path
b) Errors of judgement - failure to make the right decision eg continuing to drive at 70 on the motorway in a thunderstorm
and aqua planning as a result
c) Errors in controlling the car eg not braking hard enough, not swerving around an obstacle, target fixation
Of course, poor driving can exhibit one, two or all three of these at once.
2. The rate of error depends upon a number of factors eg if you are tired you are likely to make more mistakes. However, looking at the first two categories: errors of observation and judgement, how often you make a mistake will be related to how many times you need to make an important observation or make an important decision. This is where the complexity of the road and number of hazards plays a key role. On a straight, empty motorway in the day then there are few if any hazards (something that demands your attention and a correct decision). Consequently the risk of driving on such roads even for poor drivers is low. Increasing speed should also not increase the risk (at least to a measurable amount). On the other hand, driving in town mostly demands constant attention and decisions eg people pulling out at junctions, on coming traffic on your side of the road as they go around parked cars, etc. Increasing the number of hazards, increases the number of opportunities for humans to screw up and given the law of large numbers, eventually someone will make an error that leads to a crash. Where does speed play a role? The faster you drive the greater the demands put on your powers of observation and ability to make the correct judgements. Increasing the difficulty of the task increases the number of errors. This is evident in every other area of life eg look at computer games that rely on reaction speed - as you progress through the game it gets harder as you have to deal with more obstacles at a quicker pace, the early screens at the slow tempo are easy but you die when the pace hots up. Or take tennis. Watch Wimbledon. Do servers get lots of aces on their first serve hit at 140 or on the second serve hit at 100? It is the first serve because the returner has less time to act correctly and get his racquet on the ball. Increasing the speed limit in town from 30 to 40 would inevitably lead to more errors and more errors will lead to more crashes.
3. As well as increasing the number of errors, additional speed will also lead to more crashes because of the third category of error - driver input. Put simply, the faster you are travelling when you are called upon to take action to avoid a crash (brake, swerve, etc) the greater the skill and the faster the action required to do so successfully. Clearly for a given level of skill the higher the speed then the more likely a "situation" will lead to a crash, rather than a near miss.
4. Lastly, the faster you are travelling then the more kinetic energy you have and the greater destructive potential your vehicle has. All else being equal a crash from a higher initial speed will have more serious consequences for yourself and third parties.
In summary, crashes are mainly caused by driver error. The rate of error increases as the difficulty of the task increases.
Roads with more hazards put greater demands on drivers and so they make more errors. Increasing speed also increases difficulty and increases the error rate. Increasing speed on roads with more hazards should show a steeper increase in errors than on roads with few hazards (this is borne out by research). Increasing speed increases driver input error and also increases the severely of crashes. Roads with lots of hazards (eg urban roads) are more inherently dangerous than roads with few hazards eg motorways,
dual carriageways (in terms of consequences, although your risk of a crash on the motorway is lower but the consequences could be more severe as you are travelling faster). A direct correlation exists between speed and risk for crashes for all roads. The strength of that correlation is directly related to the number of hazards. To reduce the number of crashes to an acceptable level whilst trying to keep traffic moving it is therefore appropriate to have different speed levels (via limits) for different roads. None of the preceding is dependent upon what limits society chooses. It only states the obvious that higher limits will inevitably lead to more crashes. How many more crashes and the impact of such crashes are dependent on lots of other factors. Whether additional crashes are acceptable for the benefit of higher limits is a political decision.
No doubt the speeding apologists will come up with nonsense objections rather than trying to deal with each point above.
TooMany2cvs said:
Esceptico said:
In summary, crashes are mainly caused by driver error.
Yup.Esceptico said:
The rate of error increases as the difficulty of the task increases.
Yup, with the caveat that that's relative to the ability and the attention of the person performing the task.Esceptico said:
Roads with more hazards put greater demands on drivers and so they make more errors.
Increasing speed also increases difficulty and increases the error rate.
Not so sure about that.Increasing speed also increases difficulty and increases the error rate.
Put somebody onto a boring road at a low speed, and watch their attention wander.
Put somebody onto a road that's clearly hazardous, and tell them to get a wiggle on, and watch them focus.
That might be true for some people some of the time. Crash statistics reflect what very many people do, with lots of different attitudes towards driving over long periods of time. Your exception will have little or no real impact overall. It is also not really true. Just ask yourself how many people you see using their phones in town whilst driving where they should be concentrating
Esceptico said:
No doubt the speeding apologists...
And there you go, conflating inappropriate speed for the conditions - which I very much doubt ANYBODY would condone - with speed above the limit.If somebody is driving dangerously, charge 'em with dangerous driving.
If somebody is driving carelessly, charge 'em with careless driving.
Both those can, of course, be easily committed within the speed limit.
Which really leaves "exceeding the speed limit" as simply an administrative "one-number-bigger-than-another-number" comparison, with absolute zero implication on the risks present.
TurboHatchback said:
It's just not that simple though. I agree that going 'too fast' is dangerous, this is an completely unrelated concept to 'exceeding the speed limit'.
I agree that if you take a busy pedestrianised area and plot a chart of the speed of a car driving through it vs the probability of a collision there will be a clear and unarguable correlation between the two. If however you take a four lane motorway at midnight and plot the same chart it will not show such a correlation until a certain threshold speed has been exceeded, i.e. driving down a motorway at 10mph is not measurably safer than driving down it at 20mph but driving down it at 100mph is clearly safer than at 200mph.
The crux of my argument is that there is a threshold speed at which the risk is negligibly small, going slower than this will yield no increase in safety, above this speed there is a clear correlation of danger to speed as you describe. The posted speed limit sometimes bears some resemblance to this safe speed threshold but more often than not it does not, therefore to make a blanket claim that 'exceeding the speed limit is dangerous' is clearly false. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, ever more so now that politics, council NIMBYism and 'environmentalism' are allowed to set ever lower limits everywhere that have nothing to do with safety.
^^^^^ Also what TooMany2CVs said
As noted above in my response to TooMany2CVs, one person speeding won't increase the crash rate but large numbers of people doing so will. To try to stop large numbers of people speeding there has to be a deterrent (unless you can persuade them not to do it of their own accord - drink driving has been attacked by both stiffer punishment but also by trying to make it socially unacceptable. They are trying to do the same with speeding). Punishing individuals speeders is not because their actions were necessary dangerous but rather to try to stop a large number of people speeding.I agree that if you take a busy pedestrianised area and plot a chart of the speed of a car driving through it vs the probability of a collision there will be a clear and unarguable correlation between the two. If however you take a four lane motorway at midnight and plot the same chart it will not show such a correlation until a certain threshold speed has been exceeded, i.e. driving down a motorway at 10mph is not measurably safer than driving down it at 20mph but driving down it at 100mph is clearly safer than at 200mph.
The crux of my argument is that there is a threshold speed at which the risk is negligibly small, going slower than this will yield no increase in safety, above this speed there is a clear correlation of danger to speed as you describe. The posted speed limit sometimes bears some resemblance to this safe speed threshold but more often than not it does not, therefore to make a blanket claim that 'exceeding the speed limit is dangerous' is clearly false. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, ever more so now that politics, council NIMBYism and 'environmentalism' are allowed to set ever lower limits everywhere that have nothing to do with safety.
^^^^^ Also what TooMany2CVs said
Edited by TurboHatchback on Thursday 12th May 18:19
0000 said:
I'm not reading the rest of that, but I assume the existence of this thread means you never did work out what a direct correlation is in that other thread.
The rest of the thread provides a supported argument to show there is a correlation. I'm sure you can come back with a random anecdote not addressing any of the arguments made. LeftmostAardvark said:
Above selectively quoted as I think you're onto something here. Let's do the maths (all figures are estimates but could be collected reasonably accurately with some work)
Assumptions - light traffic, say 1030 at night on a weekday, clear weather, no roadworks in an Audi A4 capable of 140mph
1. A driver drives 10 miles at 10mph on a clear motorway - chances of crashing In any one second = 0.0001. Number of seconds = 3600. Chance of crashing on the trip = 0.36
2. A driver drives 10 miles on the same motorway at 20mph - chances of crashing in any one second = 0.0001. Number of seconds = 1800. Chances of crashing on the trip = 0.18
3. A driver drives 10 miles on the same motorway at 60 mph - chances of crashing in any one second = 0.0001 (same as before as the increased speed is offset by the closeness to the likely speed of surrounding traffic). Number of seconds = 600. Chances of crashing on the trip = 0.06
4. A driver drives 10 miles on the same motorway at 120 mph - chances of crashing in any one second = 0.0003 (triple chance of crashing compared to doing 60mph). Number of seconds = 300. Chance of crashing on the trip = 0.09
So, with those assumptions it's only 50% more likely that you'd crash at 120, than at 60 and half as likely than if you did 20...
Not sure what I really mean by this, and there are loads of factors, but inappropriate speed isn't the same as a ridiculous 'one size fits all' approach that he government seems to be taking.
It means that if you start out trying to prove something you can invent numbers to make it work! Choosing to use risk based on risk per second but keeping that risk the same at higher speeds means that you are assuming it is safer the faster you go. Hardly an unbiased assumption. Risk per metre travelled would be unbiased. But even then making up numbers is pointless because you can make them up to prove whatever you want. Research of accident statistics show an increase is risk with absolute speed but also relative speed above the speed limit (ie the difference between the person speeding and the majority of traffic). Hardly surprising as speed differences mean passing more cars and a greater potential for errors of judgement by the person speeding or the person being passed. Assumptions - light traffic, say 1030 at night on a weekday, clear weather, no roadworks in an Audi A4 capable of 140mph
1. A driver drives 10 miles at 10mph on a clear motorway - chances of crashing In any one second = 0.0001. Number of seconds = 3600. Chance of crashing on the trip = 0.36
2. A driver drives 10 miles on the same motorway at 20mph - chances of crashing in any one second = 0.0001. Number of seconds = 1800. Chances of crashing on the trip = 0.18
3. A driver drives 10 miles on the same motorway at 60 mph - chances of crashing in any one second = 0.0001 (same as before as the increased speed is offset by the closeness to the likely speed of surrounding traffic). Number of seconds = 600. Chances of crashing on the trip = 0.06
4. A driver drives 10 miles on the same motorway at 120 mph - chances of crashing in any one second = 0.0003 (triple chance of crashing compared to doing 60mph). Number of seconds = 300. Chance of crashing on the trip = 0.09
So, with those assumptions it's only 50% more likely that you'd crash at 120, than at 60 and half as likely than if you did 20...
Not sure what I really mean by this, and there are loads of factors, but inappropriate speed isn't the same as a ridiculous 'one size fits all' approach that he government seems to be taking.
Ian Geary said:
This reads like a competition to use the words "hazard", "correlation" and "crashes" as many times as possible.
Most of this is stuff is obvious anyway - it hardly needs each point to be laboured so heavily, unless you want an "obvious stuff is obvious" type thread to argue about?
It should be obvious but judging by many of the comments it doesn't seem that way. Most of this is stuff is obvious anyway - it hardly needs each point to be laboured so heavily, unless you want an "obvious stuff is obvious" type thread to argue about?
Pete317 said:
Serious question - what makes you think that there's any similarity between driving a car on a public road, and playing a computer game where you constantly have hazards flying at you from all directions at a higher rate than the human mind is capable of processing?
Have a think about that the next time you're driving down the road.
Where is the serious question? I only see a comment that tries to suggest that I said driving a car was like playing a computer game. I gave two examples of activities (nothing to do with driving) where increased speed and complexity leads to greater mistakes or errors. Why didn't you accuse me of saying that driving was like playing tennis? Or perhaps you can come up with an example of some human activity where giving people more complex tasks leads to a lower error rate?Have a think about that the next time you're driving down the road.
mikeveal said:
This is the question I'd like to see answered.
All I see is someone determined to come on a forum for motoring enthusiasts and bang on about "speed kills". Perhaps it's just trolling by the brain washed, I find it pitiful that people gain enjoyment from deliberately provoking and angering others. Perhaps the OP has lost a loved one to a road accident if so, he/she has my condolences and whilst I understand the desire to 'do something', I'd hope that in a similar situation I'd be more realistic about speeding and its effects. Perhaps there is another motivation. I'm keen to know.
Speed doesn't kill. There is nothing whatsoever wrong or dangerous or unsafe with exceeding an arbitrary number, if done carefully, in the right place and in the right conditions (for example on a good dry motorway with light traffic ). Millions of Britains do it every day and the number of accidents caused as a result is negligible. Do not confuse "wrong, dangerous or unsafe" with "illegal".
Inappropriate speed can kill. You won't find anyone here condoning racing past the school gates at chuck out time, or driving at high speed on ice through a shopping precinct.
As Derek has said, limits very often have little to do with safety. Therefore arbitrary enforcement of limits has little to do with safety. It follows naturally that the argument that speed enforcement is linked to safety is flawed and can never be won.
The arguments in your original post can be countered very simply and with a single statement: If all you assert is true, how come the roads with the highest limits (motorways) are also the safest? These are also the roads where drivers most regularly exceed the posted limits and by the largest amount. It is not uncommon to see the majority of traffic cruising safely at 10 to 15mph over the posted limit and yet no fluffy bunnies die.
So please, before you deal with any of the above, what's your agenda? Are you here to troll? Or do you actually think you will change anyone's behaviour with your posts?
I don't expect to change anyone's mind on here. Many posters on here are against speed limits and enforcement because they enjoy speeding. All their arguments are aimed at proving that speed limits or their enforcement are flawed because it goes against what they want to do (which is speed). It is telling that I set out a step by step argument linking crashes to human error, that people make more errors if they are faced with more difficult tasks and that going faster also puts more demands on the driver so all else being equal that also increases the risk of crashing. Based on that there is a prediction that people are more likely to crash on urban roads than motorways (which is backed up by statistics) and secondly that speeding in urban areas will increases crashes proportionately much more than on motorways (again backed by statistics). But rather than deal with those arguments most posters have ignored what I wrote and written about other issues (often copy paste from what they say on any thread in this section) or just made unsubstantiated points not relevant to what I wrote. All I see is someone determined to come on a forum for motoring enthusiasts and bang on about "speed kills". Perhaps it's just trolling by the brain washed, I find it pitiful that people gain enjoyment from deliberately provoking and angering others. Perhaps the OP has lost a loved one to a road accident if so, he/she has my condolences and whilst I understand the desire to 'do something', I'd hope that in a similar situation I'd be more realistic about speeding and its effects. Perhaps there is another motivation. I'm keen to know.
Speed doesn't kill. There is nothing whatsoever wrong or dangerous or unsafe with exceeding an arbitrary number, if done carefully, in the right place and in the right conditions (for example on a good dry motorway with light traffic ). Millions of Britains do it every day and the number of accidents caused as a result is negligible. Do not confuse "wrong, dangerous or unsafe" with "illegal".
Inappropriate speed can kill. You won't find anyone here condoning racing past the school gates at chuck out time, or driving at high speed on ice through a shopping precinct.
As Derek has said, limits very often have little to do with safety. Therefore arbitrary enforcement of limits has little to do with safety. It follows naturally that the argument that speed enforcement is linked to safety is flawed and can never be won.
The arguments in your original post can be countered very simply and with a single statement: If all you assert is true, how come the roads with the highest limits (motorways) are also the safest? These are also the roads where drivers most regularly exceed the posted limits and by the largest amount. It is not uncommon to see the majority of traffic cruising safely at 10 to 15mph over the posted limit and yet no fluffy bunnies die.
So please, before you deal with any of the above, what's your agenda? Are you here to troll? Or do you actually think you will change anyone's behaviour with your posts?
S. Gonzales Esq. said:
Disastrous said:
Maybe people know that driving faster is broadly more dangerous than driving slower but do it anyway?
Maybe the number of people killed in crashes in the UK each year is sufficiently low that a lot feel we don't especially need to 'do' anything to address speeding?
It's perfectly possible for someone to be fully cogent of all the dangers and risks of doing something and then do it anyway because it brings them pleasure.
I find the mindset of people who boil everything down to risk hard to follow. I am much more interested in reward than risk and would happily accept a higher risk for a greater reward. That said, I understand that people are wired differently and not everyone will agree. What I find odd though, is that the risk-averse generally get angry at people not as risk-averse as they are, whilst risk-takers generally don't seem to mind whether people are more or less risky.
...
An excellent post. I'd be interested to know the OP's motivation for their level of concern over the choices of others.Maybe the number of people killed in crashes in the UK each year is sufficiently low that a lot feel we don't especially need to 'do' anything to address speeding?
It's perfectly possible for someone to be fully cogent of all the dangers and risks of doing something and then do it anyway because it brings them pleasure.
I find the mindset of people who boil everything down to risk hard to follow. I am much more interested in reward than risk and would happily accept a higher risk for a greater reward. That said, I understand that people are wired differently and not everyone will agree. What I find odd though, is that the risk-averse generally get angry at people not as risk-averse as they are, whilst risk-takers generally don't seem to mind whether people are more or less risky.
...
If it's simply about reducing death and injury then perhaps they should be more concerned about hospital-acquired infections, diabetes management or even the mental health of young men...
but why worry about smoking because people die of heart diease. Carry on ad finitum until you don't do anything about any public health issue.
I don't have a problem with people taking risks and enjoy hobbies that involve risk. If you want to risk your life, fine. If you want to risk the life of third parties just for your personal pleasure, not the same.
Nowhere in my post did I argue for any particular speed limits (I didn't even argue they were necessary). Most posters on here are so keen to trot out their usual arguments or complain about low limits or enforcement (or make up motivations for the original post). The point of the post is that there is huge denial on PH that speed and accident rates (and severity) are directly linked (see original post for reasons). The only true safe roads would be ones where no one drives. That would defeat the object of having them. There is debate to be had as to what level of death and casualties are acceptable and whether we should have limits (and how low or high those limits should be). It is difficult to have that debate with people that deny the relationship exists.
At the risk of being accused of comparing driving with smoking....
It used to be argued that smoking isn't bad for you. From a medical perspective that makes little sense as it doesn't take make imagination to realise that constant ingestion of hot smoke into your lungs might not be good for you. Health statistics clearly show a relationship between smoking and smoking related health problems (without checking I believe lung cancer predominantly affects smokers). But smoking only increases your risk. So you can't say that every smoker will die of lung cancer. Individual smokers are also that: individual and won't have the same genes or the same lifestyles. For an individual this makes a difference. But for a large group of smokers it won't: if you look at a million smokers then based on prior statistics you can estimate that a certain number will die from it. The fact that your uncle Fred smoked like a chimney and lived to be 92 does not prove smoking is harmless. What astonishes me is that people on here quote analogous bulls
t to argue that there is no link between speed and accidents. It doesn't matter that you personally have sped all your life and not crashed. What matters is that if millions of people drive above the speed limit there will be more accidents. To reiterate the point: whether that is a problem is open to debate. Going back to the smoking analogy. There are two ways of looking at it. You can argue that there is no risk (which is not based on fact). Or you can accept reality that there is a risk but argue that the risk is worth the reward. Same for speed. Speed limits and the extent to which they are obeyed influence the number of crashes. Denying that link is silly. Debating what it means, whether as a society we should accept more casualties for higher limits is sensible.
There are many other factors that affect the number of crashes and casualties: road design, car design, driver training,
drug and alcohol limits, traffic density, etc. These are all areas that should be followed but they have to be followed in parallel to the discussion about speed limits, not as alternatives. Certainly if one could reduce risk through other measures then that would make it easier to argue for an increase in limits.
johnfm said:
Your argument ignores the fact that an increase from risk from virtually fk all to fk all still leaves a risk of fk all. And given speed of the car is only one contributor to the 'complex things' theory, tells me the risk contribution from speed has gone from a small part of virually fk all to a small part of fk all.
You are arguing about risks of that are small to push your agenda.
Another poster making up stuff without evidence or reason. A small increase of risk does make a difference if it applies to a very large number of events. There are 40 million odd people with licences in the UK that drive something like 200,000 million miles per year. A small increase with therefore have a noticeable impact on overall crashes and casualties. k all to fk all still leaves a risk of fk all. And given speed of the car is only one contributor to the 'complex things' theory, tells me the risk contribution from speed has gone from a small part of virually fk all to a small part of fk all.You are arguing about risks of that are small to push your agenda.
Dixy said:
OP I am slightly confused as to whether you think PH have a view that there is no such thing as inappropriate speed or that some speed limits are inappropriate, or both.
Most of what you say I agree with.
Depends upon how you define inappropriate speed. I think I would view inappropriate speed as speed that significantly increases the risk and for me it would be more important if that risk were to a third party. So doing 50 in town with heavy traffic would be much more inappropriate than doing 100 on an empty B road (as long as you can see far enough ahead to stop). I think (or at least hope) the majority of people on PH would agree with that.Most of what you say I agree with.
As to inappropriate speed limits. I suspect that some limits could be raised without a significant increase in risk - certainly I would support an increase of the motorway limit to 80 or 85. I think urban limits are ok as they are. NSL not sure. There are plenty of stretches where 60 seems slow yet also lots of others where 60 is perhaps too high. Having constantly varying limits probably no practical though.
Disastrous said:
Fair enough.
I'm certainly not arguing that the two aren't linked. Certainly speed is likely to be an aggravating factor in the event of a loss of control etc etc.
But given that, so what?
Surely the best you can hope for in this thread is for the masses to say "ok, agreed" and then continue speeding as normal, because nobody really cares?
That would be an improvement over bullsI'm certainly not arguing that the two aren't linked. Certainly speed is likely to be an aggravating factor in the event of a loss of control etc etc.
But given that, so what?
Surely the best you can hope for in this thread is for the masses to say "ok, agreed" and then continue speeding as normal, because nobody really cares?
t and self delusion. mikeveal said:
Esceptico said:
The point of the post is that there is huge denial on PH that speed and accident rates (and severity) are directly linked (see original post for reasons).
It is not denial, it's a repeated request to people like you to stop distorting the truth. Although I never know whether the 'speed kills' evangelists are deliberately distorting the truth or just too dumb to understand that they're doing so.The fastest roads we have are our motorways. They are also our safest roads.
Speed itself is not directly linked to accident rates, inappropriate speed is, where inappropriate speed is travelling too fast to be able to react in good time to a hazard and keep the car under control.
Exceeding the speed limit does not necessarily mean that you're using inappropriate speed (as defined above). But then travelling within the limits does not mean that you're not using inappropriate speed.
And yes, it's bloody obvious that the faster the closing speed between two colliding objects, the more damage will be done. No one disputes this.
EscepticoJust for fun, would you be so good as to fill in the follwing questionaire?
* Motorways are our safest roads. [Agree / Disagree]
* Motorways are our fastest roads. [Agree / Disagree]
* If roads with slower traffic are more dangerous that roads with faster traffic, speed is not directly related to accident rates (but inappropriate speed may be) [Agree / Disagree]
* It isn't necessarily safe to travel as fast as the speed limit allows. [Agree / Disagree]
* Sometimes speed limits are set lower than the maximum speed that could reasonably be considered safe. [Agree / Disagree]
* It isn't necessarily unsafe to travel faster than the posted speed limit/ [Agree / Disagree]
Edited by mikeveal on Friday 13th May 13:17
0000 said:
You've both (not oyster) managed to turn an increase in independent events with a probability less than 1 into a certainty though.
I'm still finding it painful that all this has spun out of him not understanding what a direct correlation is.
It is odd. You write in English yet your posts make no sense. Are you an AI bot? Or just a simpleton?I'm still finding it painful that all this has spun out of him not understanding what a direct correlation is.
KevinCamaroSS said:
Your arguments and points have one fatal flaw. By your posts the motorways should be the most dangerous roads because the speed people drive on them is higher. Yet statistically they are the safest of our roads.
I do not think anyone on here would argue that a higher speed leads to greater risk of fatality or injury if one is involved in an accident. However, I would totally disagree with the statement that speed in excess of an arbitary value is going to increase the risk of having an accident in the first place.
Except I didn't say that. In fact I said the exact opposite. If you actually read my post (rather than responses to it) you would know that I said the risk is related to the number of hazards drivers have to deal with. I specifically wrote that there are few hazards on a motorway and lots in urban environments so motorways should be safer. So what exactly is your point? I do not think anyone on here would argue that a higher speed leads to greater risk of fatality or injury if one is involved in an accident. However, I would totally disagree with the statement that speed in excess of an arbitary value is going to increase the risk of having an accident in the first place.
mikeveal said:
Well, based on part of your original post, your responses would all be "Agree."
But then you also assert that speed is dangerous, which doesn't stack up.
Please point to the part of my original post that said speed was dangerous. If you can't find it why are you accusing me of saying it? I said that increasing speed limits will increase the number of crashes. A speed limit of 35 in town rather than 30 only increases the risk slightly but with tens of millions of drivers making billions of journies per year that is enough to result in more casualties. The vast majority of those journies won't result in a crash. Is that too hard to understand? A bit poor saying if all smokers increased the amount they smoked by 10% per day. How many you smoke is a risk factor. You won't drop dead the next day from having an extra couple of cigarettes, yet if you looked at all the millions of smokers over a period of time the death rate would go up. Unlike the people on here just talking about it, governments have to actually do something and set speed limits (or not). They do so based on what they expect to happen for the population as a whole,But then you also assert that speed is dangerous, which doesn't stack up.
not individuals. They also take into account that for most people driving is primarily about getting from A to B and safety is more important to them than how fast they can go.
Red Devil said:
When someone dodges questions it's usually because they have something to hide or afraid their responses will betray the weakness of their argument. cf the 'no comment' interview.
I don't think anybody on here is arguing that there should be no speed limits or that it is not appropriate to have different limits for different roads. The issue is that those making the decisions on what those limits should be are increasingly driven by political dogma/pressure groups with vested interests unsupported by objective data/safety considerations. When a local authority is hell bent on reducing the limit despite a very specific lack of support from the relevant constabulary (who will be the ones having to enforce it) it suggests that the tail is wagging the dog to an unacceptable level.
Why should I respond to questions that are not relevant? I did reply to his subsequent reply that tried to suggest I was being contradictory (even though I wasn't).I don't think anybody on here is arguing that there should be no speed limits or that it is not appropriate to have different limits for different roads. The issue is that those making the decisions on what those limits should be are increasingly driven by political dogma/pressure groups with vested interests unsupported by objective data/safety considerations. When a local authority is hell bent on reducing the limit despite a very specific lack of support from the relevant constabulary (who will be the ones having to enforce it) it suggests that the tail is wagging the dog to an unacceptable level.
I completely disagree with your second paragraph. There are people on here that are arguing that there is no link between speed and risk/number of crashes.
mikeveal said:
You are arguing that there is a direct correlation between speed and accident rate (and my inference: speed is dangerous). Your argument is flawed. If my inference is wrong, then I apologise. But if my inference is wrong, then you'll have not problems with those questions I asked.
Your refusal to answer the questions I posed (deliberately designed to challenge your viewpoint) suggests that you know damn well that the answers you'd give would undermine your own argument. As does your dismissal of them as irrelevant.
Please clarify your point. Is speed directly linked to accident rate, or is it inappropriate speed?
And I'm sure I'm not the only one who would really would like to see you answer those questions, regardless of what you think of them.
Driving on the road carries some risk of death and injury. It is a small risk. I would not class such a small risk as "dangerous" because to me dangerous implies a medium to high risk. I don't panic each time I get in the car because I fear for my life. Your question of "is speed dangerous" seems emotionally loaded to me. Your refusal to answer the questions I posed (deliberately designed to challenge your viewpoint) suggests that you know damn well that the answers you'd give would undermine your own argument. As does your dismissal of them as irrelevant.
Please clarify your point. Is speed directly linked to accident rate, or is it inappropriate speed?
And I'm sure I'm not the only one who would really would like to see you answer those questions, regardless of what you think of them.
I suspect your use of the term "inappropriate speed" is really just an attempt to distinguish between what you view as "safe" and "unsafe" speeding, which strangely enough often corresponds 100% to "my" speeding and speeding done by "bad" other drivers. At least that is my impression of the subtext of a lot of the arguments on here.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff