77% of accidents happen at junctions...Magic radio ad

[robinessex]

Heard this on the radio this morning

77% of accidents happen at junctions

So, IF 77% of accidents DO happen at junctions, that screws up BRAKE and all the 'Speed Kills' bks then, doesn't it.

[uuf361]

It would but BRAKE will probably claim it's due to the fact that the people coming to the junction or going past the junction were reckless speeders LOL

[sherbertdip]

They happen at junctions because that is the most likely place for drivers to get it wrong and crash into each other, speed makes it more likely to happen and increases the severity, haven't you seen the thread with the the motorbike rider crashing at a junction?

If traffic is slowed approaching junctions then the likelyhood and severity both decrease.

[ging84]

regardless if that statistic is true or not
it doesn't say 77% of injuries or fatalities, which is what brake are interested in

[robinessex]

The point is, if this is true, why the heck do we have all the HOO HAA over speed, which is only a CONTRIBUTING factor in 4-7% of accidents. Junctions obviously need some serious investigation.

[illmonkey]

77% of accidents happen at junctions, that doesn't mean that's the cause (the junctions). I imagine a lot of them were a direct result in someone going too fast. Look at the recent bike video that was show. It happened at a junction, but speed was the culprit.

[Impasse]

Ban junctions.

[singlecoil]

robinessex said:

The point is, if this is true, why the heck do we have all the HOO HAA over speed, which is only a CONTRIBUTING factor in 4-7% of accidents. Junctions obviously need some serious investigation.

It may be only a contributing factor, as you put it, in a small number of accidents, but the simple and bleeding obvious fact is that the faster the vehicle(s) are going, the less easy it is for the accident to be avoided altogether, and the more deadly the results. That's why they want people to slow down.

[Fantuzzi]

illmonkey said:

77% of accidents happen at junctions, that doesn't mean that's the cause (the junctions). I imagine a lot of them were a direct result in someone going too fast. Look at the recent bike video that was show. It happened at a junction, but speed was the culprit.

Really? Junctions don't shout speeding to me they shout poor observation.

As the biker video you refer to also showed...

[sherbertdip]

Fantuzzi said:

illmonkey said:

77% of accidents happen at junctions, that doesn't mean that's the cause (the junctions). I imagine a lot of them were a direct result in someone going too fast. Look at the recent bike video that was show. It happened at a junction, but speed was the culprit.

Really? Junctions don't shout speeding to me they shout poor observation.

As the biker video you refer to also showed...

Really? do you not think (probably not, apparently) that the motorcyclist had he being going even at the speed limit might have been able to avoid the possibly near blind driver, or indeed the near blind driver might have had a better chance of seeing the bike?

[Dammit]

KE = ½ mv2

[Buzz Lightyear]

The government clearly think it's best to stop at all junctions, especially roundabouts. Hence all the traffic lights and those stupid barriers so you can't see around the corner.

I find the latter so dangerous. You have to pull out of roundabout slowly to see around them. Crazy.

[Bill]

robinessex said:

Heard this on the radio this morning

77% of accidents happen at junctions

So, IF 77% of accidents DO happen at junctions, that screws up BRAKE and all the 'Speed Kills' bks then, doesn't it.

It's rare that an OP contains such a complete logic fail. 77% of accidents at junctions includes loads of slow speed rear end shunts, and doesn't mean 77% of deaths.

[mybrainhurts]

sherbertdip said:

They happen at junctions because that is the most likely place for drivers to get it wrong and crash into each other, speed makes it more likely to happen and increases the severity, haven't you seen the thread with the the motorbike rider crashing at a junction?

If traffic is slowed approaching junctions then the likelyhood and severity both decrease.

Car A is travelling at 30mph through the junction and crashes into car B.

If car A had been travelling at 40mph, it would have passed the junction before car B emerged and there would have been no collision.

It follows that your theory is bks...

Here you go, Billy, watch and learn ----> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT8GbYL35oU

Edited by mybrainhurts on Thursday 11th September 20:14

[Sensibleboy]

sherbertdip said:

Really? do you not think (probably not, apparently) that the motorcyclist had he being going even at the speed limit might have been able to avoid the possibly near blind driver, or indeed the near blind driver might have had a better chance of seeing the bike?

Quite obvious really isn't it? If a vehicle is going slower there's more time to spot it before a potential impact can happen. There's less chance of something suddenly appearing after it's too late.

[mybrainhurts]

:sigh:

[kambites]

Accidents (anywhere) happen when people make mistakes (ignore mechanical failures, which make up a very small proportion of accidents). At junctions there are more ways to make mistakes so lots of accidents happen at junctions.

However, it's more likely that a mistake will result in an accident, and more likely that that accident will be serious, if vehicles are travelling faster because there is less time to correct the mistake and the forces involved are greater.

Whether Brake are right or wrong, the proportion of accidents that occur at junctions has no bearing on their argument.

[singlecoil]

mybrainhurts said:

:sigh:

[Tunku]

Talking of junctions, this one used to be fine until they changed the priority from the standard for T junctions. Now it's a near miss black spot.
Google Map

[mybrainhurts]

singlecoil said:

mybrainhurts said:

:sigh:

It's called a whimsy, sorry to upset you...