National slow hoon it day

[slim_boy_fat]

[quote=Rubin215Buffy the squirrel grew up to become a really hot chick who moved into a career slaying vampires.


[/quote]

I always preferred the one from the film as opposed to the TV series.

[Biker's Nemesis]

Rubin215 said:

Oh boy, this is going to take ages...

Rawwr said:

Rubin215 said:

What absolute hogwash!

Where do you find this stuff, and do you honestly believe it?

TRL studies and yes.

Oh good, you read the TRL studies; so do I, this will be easy then.

Have a look at;

TRL report 440; "The characteristics of speeders" (Webster, Wells).

"Drivers justify their personal speeding choices by assuming they are 'ordinary, safe speeding drivers' while others are 'dangerous speeding drivers.'"

How about TRL report 492; "An analysis of police reports of fatal accidents involving motorcycles" (Lynam et al).

"Sixty percent of the accidents involving cars or larger vehicles were considered to be principally the fault of the motorcyclist, and in 44 percent of the cases this was due to excessive speed."

Or maybe TRL report 511; "The relationship between speed and accidents on rural single-carriageway roads" (Taylor, Baruya, Kennedy).

"Accident frequency for all categories of accident increased rapidly with mean speed- the total injury accident frequency increased with speed to the power of approximately 2.5 - thus indicating that a 10% increase in mean speed results in a 26% increase in the frequency of all injury accidents."

"The effect of speed on fatal and serious accidents was stronger (but not statistically significantly so) than for all accidents taken together. A 10% increase in mean speed would be expected to result in a 30% increase in the frequency of fatal and serious accidents."

Rawwr said:

Rubin215 said:

Less stress on your vehicle, tyres and brakes, so less chance of mechanical failure (still a top ten primary cause of road traffic collisions where someone is killed or seriously injured).

State your source.

TRL. Funnily enough...

Rawwr said:

Rubin215 said:

More time for you, the driver, to react to unexpected events on the roadway in front of you or from other road users.

Incorrect. Time without distance is meaningless. Your argument invites the suggestion that one vehicle tailgaiting another vehicle at 40mph is as more acceptable, or at least carries less risk, than one vehicle following another vehicle at a safe distance at 60mph.

Well, actually, speed is simply distance divided by time (there's your distance element) so distance is simply speed multiplied by time. Five metres behind a vehicle at 50 mph still takes longer for you to hit him when he slams on the anchors than five metres behind him at 60 mph. Simple calculation really...
Best practise, however, is to maintain a minimum two second gap to the vehicle in front, minimum four when its wet. (Only a fool breaks the two second rule, when it does pour you now make it four...).
The slower you are going, the more time you will have to react to unexpected events on the roadway in front of you, this isn't an excuse for sitting in someone else's boot.

Rawwr said:

Rubin215 said:

More chance for your vehicle to respond safely to your input (more chance for your brakes to stop you if required, more chance for your tyres to grip under heavy braking or rapid steering).

A commonly raised argument based which remains true based on the fact that everything remains equal at zero. Unfortunately progress needs to be made and in a safe manner, which happens to be the 85th percentile.

Erm, sorry, but this is gibberish.

Rawwr said:

Rubin215 said:

In the event of your input failing to avoid a collision, less speed equals less momentum equals less force on impact.
Less force on impact means more chance for your vehicle or clothing safety features to protect you and your passengers.
Less force on impact also means less damage done to whatever (or whoever) your vehicle strikes.
Less force on impact also means your vital organs hit the inside of your body cavity with less force, therby reducing the possibility of serious or fatal injury.

See previous two responses and combine them.

So flawed calculations plus gibberish equals...?

Simple physics actually; momentum equals mass times velocity (p=mv).
The faster you are going, the greater your momentum (unless your vehicle somehow sheds ballast...).

Rawwr said:

Rubin215 said:

You only have to ask an experienced traffic cop, firefighter, paramedic or surgeon for evidence of the link between speed and survivability.

Or, at the more extreme end of the scale, Richard Hammond.

Blessed by God, undoubtedly, but thousands of others still die in road traffic collisions every year.

Rawwr said:

Rubin215 said:

In terms of traffic safety; safest city in the world for all road users (car, lorry, bus, pedestrian, cyclist and motorcyclist) is Tokyo.
Coincidentally, the city with the slowest average traffic speed is... Tokyo.

So that's the only variable, is it? Could I also mention that Japan, as a whole, has the most disciplined drivers in the world, the least cases of roadrage and one of the highest standards of driver education?

And you say that like it's a bad thing!
If only Britain had the same attitude!

Rawwr said:

Rubin215 said:

Now, how about this claim that "if drivers were restricted to speeds below this 85 percentile speed then accidents actually increased as the driver was not getting sufficient mental stimulation form driving to maintain appropriate levels of concentration."

This sound very like the "If I have a couple of pints I'm a better driver" argument so beloved of the habitual drunk; "If I go faster I concentrate so much more..." the rant maybe of the habitual speeder?

The argument isn't "if I go faster I concentrate so much more", the argument is "if I go slower I concentrate less". You need an averaging rule to use this on a practical scale. The rule would be the 85th percentile.

Again, if you need to be going fast to concentrate adequately you should not be on the roads!

Rawwr said:

Rubin215 said:

If you can't get enough "mental stimulation" from driving at a reasonable speed, quite frankly you are a danger to other road users and should not be on the public highway

I'm not even going to start on this.

Probably just as well; as Confuscious say, "Once in hole, stop digging."

Rawwr said:

Rubin215 said:

(remembering of course that "inattention" is still number one in the top ten primary causes of KSI incidents!).

Your vehicle is a potentially dangerous, heavy and fast moving piece of machinery; don't you think you should be giving it your full concentration at all times when operating it?

Try this websit for a change; much more reasoned, much more respected,

www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/managingspeedonourroads

Read, acknowledged, reviewed.

Excellent! Every day is a school day!

Rawwr said:

Rubin215 said:

in the meantime, carry on being imortal...

Are you suggesting that if we drive 10mph below the speed limit that we'll live forever or are you just using inappropriate words and extreme parameter non-argument again?

It's called humour. Y'know, the old Bloodrunners T-shirt "I am imortal... so far..."

Rawwr said:

Your argument did consist of valid points (hidden in amongst the diatribe and rhetoric) but your fact without reason stance of debate is weak. People need to get from A to B and in a reasonable time, otherwise we could practically zero the accident rate by limiting all vehicles to 1mph. At 1mph everyone would get to where they're going and it's massively unlikely that anyone would die or be injured. However, it'd also take people several days or weeks to get to work and therefore is irrelevant.

Yes, people do need to get from A to B in a reasonable time; but they stand more chance of actually getting there by allowing enough time in the first place and sticking to a sensible speed. Look at the number of emergency services around the country who have moved from a full speed blue light policy to "Arrive Alive" with maximum speeds while responding.
And stop being silly; if everyones vehicle was limited to 1mph they would just walk and there would be an explosion of pavement rage and crossing congestion...

Rawwr said:

You need to take the axis of speed against the an axis of practical usability and there will be a point of reason on that graph. It'll probably be around the 85th percentile.

And if everyone drove more slowly in the first place, that "magic" 85th percentile would also be slower.



Now, turning to a much more worthy and wise adversory...

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

What absolute hogwash!

Where do you find this stuff, and do you honestly believe it?

From www.safespeed.org.uk and yes, I believe it!

Okay, I'll be honest; I took one look at the irrational ramblings on the home page and went no further.
There may well be some useful info there somewhere (in every extremist's mind is a glimmer of reason) but I have better things to do than go look.

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

Lets look at a 10 mph reduction in vehicle speed first, shall we?

Less stress on your vehicle, tyres and brakes, so less chance of mechanical failure (still a top ten primary cause of road traffic collisions where someone is killed or seriously injured).

It is a rider/drivers legal duty to ensure that his/her vehicle is in a road worthy condition. If the vehicle is not in a road worthy condition then reducing your speed by 10mph may well delay the occurrence of an incident but I would suggest that it is not likely to avoid it. In this case, a major contributing factor to any accident is the drivers’ decision to take a vehicle that is not road worthy onto the road.

If the vehicle is in a road worthy condition prior to a journey then I would suggest that the reduction of 10mph will not significantly change the results of a catastrophic failure.

All machinery has design limitations on it's component parts. This is as true for a modern car or motorcycle as it was for Stevenson's Rocket.
Eventually these parts will fail, possibly while in use, potentially catastrophically.
The closer to it's design limits any piece of machinery is used (whether this is age or performance related) the more likely one of it's components is to fail.
Any machine running at slower speed will take longer to wear out and will be less likely to fail than one being used at higher speed.
I have seen a perfectly serviced, well run in, two year old Fireblade throw a con-rod right through the front of the engine at less than 60 mph, locking the rear wheel and throwing the rider off before he had time to react. He was injured, but survived. The vehicle had been in perfectly road worthy condition.
What difference would the extra 10 mph have made? The engine would probably still have blown, but who knows the difference an extra 10 mph could have made to his injuries (oh and if anyone thinks 10 mph is nothing, try jogging straight into a wall and see what you think then).

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

More time for you, the driver, to react to unexpected events on the roadway in front of you or from other road users.
More chance for your vehicle to respond safely to your input (more chance for your brakes to stop you if required, more chance for your tyres to grip under heavy braking or rapid steering).
In the event of your input failing to avoid a collision, less speed equals less momentum equals less force on impact.
Less force on impact means more chance for your vehicle or clothing safety features to protect you and your passengers.
Less force on impact also means less damage done to whatever (or whoever) your vehicle strikes.
Less force on impact also means your vital organs hit the inside of your body cavity with less force, therby reducing the possibility of serious or fatal injury.

I agree with all of the above but I feel you are missing a fundamental point. The ‘decision making’ part of the process is done by a human being and not a machine. If you reduce the data input rate to a machine it will ‘happily’ sit in an idle mode until the next item of data is sent to it, at which point it will process the data with exactly the same degree of efficiency as the previous item of data and the next item of data. Human beings are not like that. If you give a clear set of rules and ask a human being to concentrate on a task and then provide them with a regular stimulus relating to that task, they will process information quickly and efficiently and generally make good sound decisions based on that events and the rule set. If you then start to remove some of the stimulus you will find that most are unable to concentrate on the task to the same degree and that their reaction times and decision making starts to deteriorate.

Driver error/concentration/decision making (call it what you like) is the biggest single cause of road accidents.

So how come folks in ye olde days managed to stay awake while steering a horse and cart? Ford model T? BSA Bantam? Triumph Herald?
Did the reduced "cruising speed" of these vehicles somehow make them massively more mentally stimulating?
Or have we, as a society, suddenly become numb to "normal" levels of stimulation?
This is just another excuse pedalled by the speed addict to explain his anti-social behaviour.
(I moved onto coke when I stopped getting a buzz from speed...)

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

You only have to ask an experienced traffic cop, firefighter, paramedic or surgeon for evidence of the link between speed and survivability.

I have no doubt about the link between speed and survivability in the event of an accident but that is not the only point here. I can guarantee that 100% of people will survive totally uninjured, regardless of speed, any accident that does not happen. We need to concentrate on stopping accidents happening in the first place not just reducing the potential damage when one does occur.

And one potential way of reducing the incidence of RTC's is for everyone to reduce their speed.

black-k1 said:

I accept that if we had no speed we would have no accidents, but that is not practical given that all road users are doing so in order to travel thus they will require some speed. The question is how much speed is safe?

Likewise, Germany (a country with a culture that is very similar to our own) have large stretches of de-restricted motorways and have overall a much higher average motorway speed than we do yet their KSI rates are very similar to ours.

Many, many variables on this one. German learner tuition is to a far higher standard than ours, road vehicles are on average newer, road infrastructure is much better. I don't have enough info to know if this is a fair comparison, however, anecdotaly from a German friend the majority of their autobahn accidents involve at least one fatality.

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

Now, how about this claim that "if drivers were restricted to speeds below this 85 percentile speed then accidents actually increased as the driver was not getting sufficient mental stimulation form driving to maintain appropriate levels of concentration."

This sound very like the "If I have a couple of pints I'm a better driver" argument so beloved of the habitual drunk; "If I go faster I concentrate so much more..." the rant maybe of the habitual speeder?

Just to be absolutely clear, I do not condone any form of ‘drink driving’. If/when I speed I accept the risks that are attached to that and manage the situation accordingly.

Webster and Wells; quoted above.

black-k1 said:

While it is not a justification I would suggest that the majority of road users are ‘habitual speeders’ as independent surveys have shown that most drivers/riders regularly exceed the speed limit.

And when my dad was my age, the majority of road users were drink drivers.
Times change, move on.

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

If you can't get enough "mental stimulation" from driving at a reasonable speed, quite frankly you are a danger to other road users and should not be on the public highway (remembering of course that "inattention" is still number one in the top ten primary causes of KSI incidents!).

But I do get enough mental stimulation from driving at a reasonable speed but the key question is – what is a reasonable speed? As you say, inattention is the biggest cause of accidents which would indicate that a large number of driver are not getting enough mental stimulation. My point from your original statement was that by a driver/rider traveling 10mph slower than they would do normally will not necessarily make them safer as it will reduce the data input rate and will thus potentially increase the number of inattentive drivers on the road. (Not to mention the frustration caused to those road users caught behind the slow moving vehicle).

Rather than the majority of drivers not getting enough mental stimulation I would argue that the majority of drivers do not pay enough attention to the task they are performing; driving or riding!

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

in the meantime, carry on being imortal...

It is exactly because I know than I am not immortal that I don’t just blindly accept any ‘one size fits all’ solution to any road safety item. I look at independent research and try to understand as much as possible of what is an incredibly complex, ever changing subject.

I think that anyone who can make a statement such as

Rubin215 said:

Driving at 10 mph below the speed limit certainly improves your chances of it (death or serious injury) not being today though!

is at best naïve and needs to undertake further and more detailed investigation into the subject.

Ah now, you've changed my original words, however I'm still happy to stand by them.
Driving at 10 mph below the speed limit certainly improves you chances of not being killed or seriously injured in a road accident today or any other day.

As evidence I quote Taylor, Baruya and Kennedy (quoted above);

"The percentage reduction in accident frequency per 1mile/h reduction in mean speed implied by the relationship developed for total accidents depends on the mean speed. It ranges from 9% at a mean speed of 27 miles/h to 4% at a mean speed of 60 miles/h."

Kin hell.

Get a grip.

[Poledriver]

Your speed may increase the likelihood of serious injury or death, but it is poor driving ability which causes the accident in the first place!

Edited by Poledriver on Saturday 5th April 00:32

[Rubin215]

Poledriver said:

Your speed may increase the likelihood of serious injury or death, but it is poor driving ability which causes the accident in the first place!

Edited by Poledriver on Saturday 5th April 00:32

And excessive speed for the environment, the conditions, the roadway, your vehicle, your ability or your experience is exactly that; poor driving ability.

[black-k1]

OK – Here we go ………

Firstly, we must remember some key details which I think I can state without fear of contradiction:

1. Speed will always be a factor in accidents as if no one moved there would be no accidents but there would be no traveling either.
2. Accidents, by their nature, are random events that can not be predicted. All that can hope to be achieved is to influence the likelihood of such random events.
3. Human beings are not machines and make mistakes.

This debate is also being moved into one about the safety of exceeding a speed limit which is different to the original comment that ‘driving at 10 mph below the speed limit certainly improves your chances of it (death or serious injury) not being today though!’ While they are related, they are not the same as a driver/rider who already consistently traveled below the speed limit would not be affected by the speed limit debate.

Rubin215 said:

Oh boy, this is going to take ages...

Rawwr said:

Rubin215 said:

What absolute hogwash!

Where do you find this stuff, and do you honestly believe it?

TRL studies and yes.

Oh good, you read the TRL studies; so do I, this will be easy then.

Have a look at;

TRL report 440; "The characteristics of speeders" (Webster, Wells).

"Drivers justify their personal speeding choices by assuming they are 'ordinary, safe speeding drivers' while others are 'dangerous speeding drivers.'"

But TRL440 is simply a piece of political hype and does nothing to show any relationship between either exceeding the speed limit and accidents or speed and accidents. It comes from the assumption that speeding (exceeding the speed limit) is dangerous and that not speeding is safe. This is naive and simplistic and with the most recent government accident statistics showing that only around 4% - 6% of KSI have exceeding the speed limit as a contributing factor.

Rubin215 said:

How about TRL report 492; "An analysis of police reports of fatal accidents involving motorcycles" (Lynam et al).

"Sixty percent of the accidents involving cars or larger vehicles were considered to be principally the fault of the motorcyclist, and in 44 percent of the cases this was due to excessive speed."

Or maybe TRL report 511; "The relationship between speed and accidents on rural single-carriageway roads" (Taylor, Baruya, Kennedy).

"Accident frequency for all categories of accident increased rapidly with mean speed- the total injury accident frequency increased with speed to the power of approximately 2.5 - thus indicating that a 10% increase in mean speed results in a 26% increase in the frequency of all injury accidents."

"The effect of speed on fatal and serious accidents was stronger (but not statistically significantly so) than for all accidents taken together. A 10% increase in mean speed would be expected to result in a 30% increase in the frequency of fatal and serious accidents."

It all depends on how you interoperate the figures. ABD have looked at the same figures and The ABD has read TRL511 in detail and has found that the initial assessment of 174 rural roads showed that accidents FELL with higher speeds rather than rose, because there were fewer hazards on the roads where people drove faster.http://www.abd.org.uk/trl511.htm

Rubin215 said:

Rawwr said:

Rubin215 said:

Less stress on your vehicle, tyres and brakes, so less chance of mechanical failure (still a top ten primary cause of road traffic collisions where someone is killed or seriously injured).

State your source.

TRL. Funnily enough...

Rawwr said:

Rubin215 said:

More time for you, the driver, to react to unexpected events on the roadway in front of you or from other road users.

Incorrect. Time without distance is meaningless. Your argument invites the suggestion that one vehicle tailgaiting another vehicle at 40mph is as more acceptable, or at least carries less risk, than one vehicle following another vehicle at a safe distance at 60mph.

Well, actually, speed is simply distance divided by time (there's your distance element) so distance is simply speed multiplied by time. Five metres behind a vehicle at 50 mph still takes longer for you to hit him when he slams on the anchors than five metres behind him at 60 mph. Simple calculation really...
Best practise, however, is to maintain a minimum two second gap to the vehicle in front, minimum four when its wet. (Only a fool breaks the two second rule, when it does pour you now make it four...).
The slower you are going, the more time you will have to react to unexpected events on the roadway in front of you, this isn't an excuse for sitting in someone else's boot.

Rawwr said:

Rubin215 said:

More chance for your vehicle to respond safely to your input (more chance for your brakes to stop you if required, more chance for your tyres to grip under heavy braking or rapid steering).

A commonly raised argument based which remains true based on the fact that everything remains equal at zero. Unfortunately progress needs to be made and in a safe manner, which happens to be the 85th percentile.

Erm, sorry, but this is gibberish.

Rawwr said:

Rubin215 said:

In the event of your input failing to avoid a collision, less speed equals less momentum equals less force on impact.
Less force on impact means more chance for your vehicle or clothing safety features to protect you and your passengers.
Less force on impact also means less damage done to whatever (or whoever) your vehicle strikes.
Less force on impact also means your vital organs hit the inside of your body cavity with less force, therby reducing the possibility of serious or fatal injury.

See previous two responses and combine them.

So flawed calculations plus gibberish equals...?

Simple physics actually; momentum equals mass times velocity (p=mv).
The faster you are going, the greater your momentum (unless your vehicle somehow sheds ballast...).

Rawwr said:

Rubin215 said:

You only have to ask an experienced traffic cop, firefighter, paramedic or surgeon for evidence of the link between speed and survivability.

Or, at the more extreme end of the scale, Richard Hammond.

Blessed by God, undoubtedly, but thousands of others still die in road traffic collisions every year.

Rawwr said:

Rubin215 said:

In terms of traffic safety; safest city in the world for all road users (car, lorry, bus, pedestrian, cyclist and motorcyclist) is Tokyo.
Coincidentally, the city with the slowest average traffic speed is... Tokyo.

So that's the only variable, is it? Could I also mention that Japan, as a whole, has the most disciplined drivers in the world, the least cases of roadrage and one of the highest standards of driver education?

And you say that like it's a bad thing!

On the contrary, I believe that Rawwr is saying that it’s a good thing and that it has much more to do with Tokyo’s low accident rate than the average speed of traffic flow which appeared to be what you were originally implying.

Rubin215 said:

If only Britain had the same attitude!

Agreed, but also a government who encouraged it’s drivers to take those attitudes.

Rubin215 said:

Rawwr said:

Rubin215 said:

Now, how about this claim that "if drivers were restricted to speeds below this 85 percentile speed then accidents actually increased as the driver was not getting sufficient mental stimulation form driving to maintain appropriate levels of concentration."

This sound very like the "If I have a couple of pints I'm a better driver" argument so beloved of the habitual drunk; "If I go faster I concentrate so much more..." the rant maybe of the habitual speeder?

The argument isn't "if I go faster I concentrate so much more", the argument is "if I go slower I concentrate less". You need an averaging rule to use this on a practical scale. The rule would be the 85th percentile.

Again, if you need to be going fast to concentrate adequately you should not be on the roads!

Rawwr said:

Rubin215 said:

If you can't get enough "mental stimulation" from driving at a reasonable speed, quite frankly you are a danger to other road users and should not be on the public highway

I'm not even going to start on this.

Probably just as well; as Confuscious say, "Once in hole, stop digging."

Rawwr said:

Rubin215 said:

(remembering of course that "inattention" is still number one in the top ten primary causes of KSI incidents!).

Your vehicle is a potentially dangerous, heavy and fast moving piece of machinery; don't you think you should be giving it your full concentration at all times when operating it?

Try this websit for a change; much more reasoned, much more respected,

www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/managingspeedonourroads

Read, acknowledged, reviewed.

Excellent! Every day is a school day!

Rawwr said:

Rubin215 said:

in the meantime, carry on being imortal...

Are you suggesting that if we drive 10mph below the speed limit that we'll live forever or are you just using inappropriate words and extreme parameter non-argument again?

It's called humour. Y'know, the old Bloodrunners T-shirt "I am imortal... so far..."

If it’s humour it may be a good idea to add a smiley .

Rubin215 said:

Rawwr said:

Your argument did consist of valid points (hidden in amongst the diatribe and rhetoric) but your fact without reason stance of debate is weak. People need to get from A to B and in a reasonable time, otherwise we could practically zero the accident rate by limiting all vehicles to 1mph. At 1mph everyone would get to where they're going and it's massively unlikely that anyone would die or be injured. However, it'd also take people several days or weeks to get to work and therefore is irrelevant.

Yes, people do need to get from A to B in a reasonable time; but they stand more chance of actually getting there by allowing enough time in the first place and sticking to a sensible speed. Look at the number of emergency services around the country who have moved from a full speed blue light policy to "Arrive Alive" with maximum speeds while responding.
And stop being silly; if everyones vehicle was limited to 1mph they would just walk and there would be an explosion of pavement rage and crossing congestion...

Rawwr said:

You need to take the axis of speed against the an axis of practical usability and there will be a point of reason on that graph. It'll probably be around the 85th percentile.

And if everyone drove more slowly in the first place, that "magic" 85th percentile would also be slower.

To establish the 85th percentile you need to start with free traffic flow, not a traffic flow that is already artificially restricted to an arbitrary maximum speed. I’m surprised at you Rubin215, that’s pretty basic stuff!

Rubin215 said:

Now, turning to a much more worthy and wise adversory...

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

What absolute hogwash!

Where do you find this stuff, and do you honestly believe it?

From www.safespeed.org.uk and yes, I believe it!

Okay, I'll be honest; I took one look at the irrational ramblings on the home page and went no further.
There may well be some useful info there somewhere (in every extremist's mind is a glimmer of reason) but I have better things to do than go look.

I hope that’s meant as humor (no smily again!) as if it’s not it's a pretty ignorant statement! To be involved in a debate on something as important as road safety on a public form and then to state I have better things to do than go look when someone suggests that there is key information available is arrogant and immature.

It is worth mentioning something from the Safe Speed site, their editorial policy. It states:
We have a strict editorial policy regarding factual content. If any fact anywhere on this web site can be shown to be incorrect we promise to remove it or correct it as soon as possible. This is stated on just about every page on the site.

Rubin215 said:

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

Lets look at a 10 mph reduction in vehicle speed first, shall we?

Less stress on your vehicle, tyres and brakes, so less chance of mechanical failure (still a top ten primary cause of road traffic collisions where someone is killed or seriously injured).

It is a rider/drivers legal duty to ensure that his/her vehicle is in a road worthy condition. If the vehicle is not in a road worthy condition then reducing your speed by 10mph may well delay the occurrence of an incident but I would suggest that it is not likely to avoid it. In this case, a major contributing factor to any accident is the drivers’ decision to take a vehicle that is not road worthy onto the road.

If the vehicle is in a road worthy condition prior to a journey then I would suggest that the reduction of 10mph will not significantly change the results of a catastrophic failure.

All machinery has design limitations on it's component parts. This is as true for a modern car or motorcycle as it was for Stevenson's Rocket.
Eventually these parts will fail, possibly while in use, potentially catastrophically.
The closer to it's design limits any piece of machinery is used (whether this is age or performance related) the more likely one of it's components is to fail.
Any machine running at slower speed will take longer to wear out and will be less likely to fail than one being used at higher speed.
I have seen a perfectly serviced, well run in, two year old Fireblade throw a con-rod right through the front of the engine at less than 60 mph, locking the rear wheel and throwing the rider off before he had time to react. He was injured, but survived. The vehicle had been in perfectly road worthy condition.
What difference would the extra 10 mph have made? The engine would probably still have blown, but who knows the difference an extra 10 mph could have made to his injuries (oh and if anyone thinks 10 mph is nothing, try jogging straight into a wall and see what you think then).

An interesting anecdote, but of little relevance in the debate. I could point to many people who have traveled at speeds well in excess of double the UK legal limit (All in Germany or on private roads of course) and not suffered mechanical failure but it doesn’t further the debate. If your vehicle will avoid ‘self destruction’ simply because you are traveling 10mph slower then your vehicle is not road worthy and there are rules regarding the road worthiness of vehicles.

Rubin215 said:

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

More time for you, the driver, to react to unexpected events on the roadway in front of you or from other road users.
More chance for your vehicle to respond safely to your input (more chance for your brakes to stop you if required, more chance for your tyres to grip under heavy braking or rapid steering).
In the event of your input failing to avoid a collision, less speed equals less momentum equals less force on impact.
Less force on impact means more chance for your vehicle or clothing safety features to protect you and your passengers.
Less force on impact also means less damage done to whatever (or whoever) your vehicle strikes.
Less force on impact also means your vital organs hit the inside of your body cavity with less force, therby reducing the possibility of serious or fatal injury.

I agree with all of the above but I feel you are missing a fundamental point. The ‘decision making’ part of the process is done by a human being and not a machine. If you reduce the data input rate to a machine it will ‘happily’ sit in an idle mode until the next item of data is sent to it, at which point it will process the data with exactly the same degree of efficiency as the previous item of data and the next item of data. Human beings are not like that. If you give a clear set of rules and ask a human being to concentrate on a task and then provide them with a regular stimulus relating to that task, they will process information quickly and efficiently and generally make good sound decisions based on that events and the rule set. If you then start to remove some of the stimulus you will find that most are unable to concentrate on the task to the same degree and that their reaction times and decision making starts to deteriorate.

Driver error/concentration/decision making (call it what you like) is the biggest single cause of road accidents.

So how come folks in ye olde days managed to stay awake while steering a horse and cart? Ford model T? BSA Bantam? Triumph Herald?
Did the reduced "cruising speed" of these vehicles somehow make them massively more mentally stimulating?
Or have we, as a society, suddenly become numb to "normal" levels of stimulation?
This is just another excuse pedalled by the speed addict to explain his anti-social behaviour.
(I moved onto coke when I stopped getting a buzz from speed...)

No, they had lots of accidents! If you look at the accident per mile statistics then the 50’s and 60’ are horrific but there was less traffic which means there was a lower total number of accidents. (And yes, it was common for horse and cart drivers to fall asleep while driving, especially on the way home from the pub as the horse knew the way home. )

Rubin215 said:

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

You only have to ask an experienced traffic cop, firefighter, paramedic or surgeon for evidence of the link between speed and survivability.

I have no doubt about the link between speed and survivability in the event of an accident but that is not the only point here. I can guarantee that 100% of people will survive totally uninjured, regardless of speed, any accident that does not happen. We need to concentrate on stopping accidents happening in the first place not just reducing the potential damage when one does occur.

And one potential way of reducing the incidence of RTC's is for everyone to reduce their speed.

Simply re-stating an opinion does not suddenly make it fact. The actual research done on this subject (that produced the 85th percentile rule) disagrees with you.

Rubin215 said:

black-k1 said:

I accept that if we had no speed we would have no accidents, but that is not practical given that all road users are doing so in order to travel thus they will require some speed. The question is how much speed is safe?

Likewise, Germany (a country with a culture that is very similar to our own) have large stretches of de-restricted motorways and have overall a much higher average motorway speed than we do yet their KSI rates are very similar to ours.

Many, many variables on this one. German learner tuition is to a far higher standard than ours, road vehicles are on average newer, road infrastructure is much better. I don't have enough info to know if this is a fair comparison, however, anecdotaly from a German friend the majority of their autobahn accidents involve at least one fatality.

Again, I agree that there are many variables but that is the point. German autobahns are, on average, much faster than UK motorways and are not significantly more dangerous which proves reducing the speed does not necessarily make things safer.

Rubin215 said:

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

Now, how about this claim that "if drivers were restricted to speeds below this 85 percentile speed then accidents actually increased as the driver was not getting sufficient mental stimulation form driving to maintain appropriate levels of concentration."

This sound very like the "If I have a couple of pints I'm a better driver" argument so beloved of the habitual drunk; "If I go faster I concentrate so much more..." the rant maybe of the habitual speeder?

Just to be absolutely clear, I do not condone any form of ‘drink driving’. If/when I speed I accept the risks that are attached to that and manage the situation accordingly.

Webster and Wells; quoted above.

Response given above!

Rubin215 said:

black-k1 said:

While it is not a justification I would suggest that the majority of road users are ‘habitual speeders’ as independent surveys have shown that most drivers/riders regularly exceed the speed limit.

And when my dad was my age, the majority of road users were drink drivers.
Times change, move on.

The difference is that it can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that alcohol increases the danger to all road users and alcohol serves no benefit in road usage. As has already been stated, speed is a necessity. The question is simply what is the safest speed? (What speed would you like me to move on at? )

Rubin215 said:

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

If you can't get enough "mental stimulation" from driving at a reasonable speed, quite frankly you are a danger to other road users and should not be on the public highway (remembering of course that "inattention" is still number one in the top ten primary causes of KSI incidents!).

But I do get enough mental stimulation from driving at a reasonable speed but the key question is – what is a reasonable speed? As you say, inattention is the biggest cause of accidents which would indicate that a large number of driver are not getting enough mental stimulation. My point from your original statement was that by a driver/rider traveling 10mph slower than they would do normally will not necessarily make them safer as it will reduce the data input rate and will thus potentially increase the number of inattentive drivers on the road. (Not to mention the frustration caused to those road users caught behind the slow moving vehicle).

Rather than the majority of drivers not getting enough mental stimulation I would argue that the majority of drivers do not pay enough attention to the task they are performing; driving or riding!

Agreed, but the question is why are they not concentrating? I would suggest that it is at least partly because they have been conditioned over the last 15 years to believe that road safety is measured on their speedometer and that as long as they remain within the limit they are safe and don’t need to concentrate further. In fact, if they reduce their speed by another 10mph they will be even safer and will have to concentrated even less!

Rubin215 said:

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

in the meantime, carry on being imortal...

It is exactly because I know than I am not immortal that I don’t just blindly accept any ‘one size fits all’ solution to any road safety item. I look at independent research and try to understand as much as possible of what is an incredibly complex, ever changing subject.

I think that anyone who can make a statement such as

Rubin215 said:

Driving at 10 mph below the speed limit certainly improves your chances of it (death or serious injury) not being today though!

is at best naïve and needs to undertake further and more detailed investigation into the subject.

Ah now, you've changed my original words, however I'm still happy to stand by them.
Driving at 10 mph below the speed limit certainly improves you chances of not being killed or seriously injured in a road accident today or any other day.

As evidence I quote Taylor, Baruya and Kennedy (quoted above);

"The percentage reduction in accident frequency per 1mile/h reduction in mean speed implied by the relationship developed for total accidents depends on the mean speed. It ranges from 9% at a mean speed of 27 miles/h to 4% at a mean speed of 60 miles/h."

But more recent statistics have shown this to be wrong.

I will again ask that you read the information on the Safe Speed web site.

If being safer for you means driving a 10mph slower than you would otherwise have done then please do this. I however, will continue to adopt the approach that speed is simply one of many complex variables that have to be managed, second by second, as I drive/ride in order to keep me safe and I will adjust my driving/riding accordingly.

Ride safe and enjoy.

[black-k1]

Just for reference, here is a graphical view of the 85th percentile rule.



Note that moving anywhere to the left of the 85th percentile point causes an increase in risk.

[slim_boy_fat]

black-k1 said:

Just for reference, here is a graphical view of the 85th percentile rule.



Note that moving anywhere to the left of the 85th percentile point causes an increase in risk.

What you are showing is the risk of a crash.

But if you crash at 10mph instead of say 180mph who is more likely to get hurt?.

This is a very complicated subject still with much research to be conducted.

Keep speeding to sensible limits on sensible roads is my take on it.

Probably too many of us on big bikes travel way faster than the prevailing road conditions allow, and it only luck that stops us having an accident.

I came round a bend once a couple fo years ago to find a cow in the middle of the road, fortunately i was only going at 40mph in a car, but i could have easily been doing 60 on the bike and the outcome may have been very different.

[thewurzel]

black-k1 said:

Note that moving anywhere to the left of the 85th percentile point causes an increase in risk.

You are showing the basic flaw with Safe Speed, it doesn't really matter what causes the crash - lots of things cause crashes, higher speed crashes are generally worse than lower speed crashes.

[black-k1]

thewurzel said:

black-k1 said:

Note that moving anywhere to the left of the 85th percentile point causes an increase in risk.

You are showing the basic flaw with Safe Speed, it doesn't really matter what causes the crash - lots of things cause crashes, higher speed crashes are generally worse than lower speed crashes.

But by ignoring the 85th percentile rule you are more likely to have the crash in the first place and as I have said before 100% of people survive totally unharmed, crashes that don't happen. The question is, 'are you happier to be less likely to have a crash but that it might be more serious or would you rather you are more likely to have a crash and it may not be quite so serious'?

Given that any crash carries HUGE risks, regardless of speed, I would much rather it didn’t happen in the first place.

[black-k1]

slim_boy_fat said:

black-k1 said:

Just for reference, here is a graphical view of the 85th percentile rule.



Note that moving anywhere to the left of the 85th percentile point causes an increase in risk.

What you are showing is the risk of a crash.

But if you crash at 10mph instead of say 180mph who is more likely to get hurt?.

Agreed, but given that very few of us spend much time traveling at either 10mph or 180mph the question then is are you significantly less likely to get hurt at 60mph rather than 70mph? That is a much more difficult call to make, especially for motorcyclists.

slim_boy_fat said:

This is a very complicated subject still with much research to be conducted.

Totally agree, and it is very unlikley that further research, however detailed, will ever be able to come up with any form of 'blanket rule' that says if you travel at 10mph less than you would do otherwise, you are much more likely to get home safely.

slim_boy_fat said:

Keep speeding to sensible limits on sensible roads is my take on it.

IMHO, a very sensible approach, but remember, those are exactly the roads that are likely to be targeted for speed enforcement.

slim_boy_fat said:

Probably too many of us on big bikes travel way faster than the prevailing road conditions allow, and it only luck that stops us having an accident.

We have all had our moments as we are all human and make mistakes. Those moments should then become an experience that we learn from.

slim_boy_fat said:

I came round a bend once a couple fo years ago to find a cow in the middle of the road, fortunately i was only going at 40mph in a car, but i could have easily been doing 60 on the bike and the outcome may have been very different.

So experience should now tell you that bends such as that need to be approached on the bike with a little more caution. The fact that this was a few years ago and you are still here would indicate that at least part of the lesson has been learnt.

[gilberninvader]

Just come back to see if there was any interest in my 'go slow day' and have read through all the posts, i would like to clarify that i normally drive at or very close to speed 'restrictions' as i want to firstly keep driving, secondly keep my existing job and thirdly i couldn't afford the potential fines. It is for these reasons i have a clean licence and have been driving for over 30 years.I consider myself to be a safe driver having been taught defensive driving by a Police -driving instructor. I was also a mayoral chauffeur for several years until retiring from that position.

On my go slow day my aim is to drive 10 mph under speed limits everywhere, try it its very difficult i can confirm! Other road users will bully you as they expect you to drive at the proscribed speed limit. I have noticed that there is a proliferation in towns / built up areas that drivers have been brainwashed into the 'speed limit syndrome' and drive at 30 mph even when clearly unsafe to and totally inappropriate for weather conditions or locality eg outside schools etc. They believe they are driving safely as they are driving at the speed limit, and again falsely believe they are doing 'nothing wrong'.

My biggest gripe is that the proliferation of speed cameras throughout the country has been brought about under the premise that they will reduce road accidents by slowing the traffic. Actually i think they aren't anything of the sort, they have become a stealth tax on the motorist and the Government have cashed in on it.
They have now even started to introduce horse boxes with cameras in North Wales not as a deterrent but just to generate income.
If their purpose was to even highlight dangerous sections of road by being highly visible then i might begin to understand the reason for them being there in the first place. To me they indicate a an area with higher than average road accidents as that was the early reason for positioning them at those spots. This reason will be lost if they begin to camouflage them like this.

So if your fed up with being taxed to the hilt then join me. If not roll over, pay your taxes and don't complain on forums like this. There are many others starting to form petitions etc which i have also signed up to, but what the heck i would prefer to do something more visible and still within the law!

Edited by gilberninvader on Saturday 5th April 22:46

[GPSHead]

thewurzel said:

black-k1 said:

Note that moving anywhere to the left of the 85th percentile point causes an increase in risk.

You are showing the basic flaw with Safe Speed, it doesn't really matter what causes the crash - lots of things cause crashes, higher speed crashes are generally worse than lower speed crashes.

Do you speed? Do you do it more than 4 times every 3 years? Just a "yes" or a "no" will do.

And you know perfectly well that the stuff on Safe Speed stacks up. You know perfectly well that going too fast and exceeding the speed limit are completely different, and that the former is far more important than the latter. You know perfectly well that there is a huge difference between impact speed and free-travelling speed. You know perfectly well that the figures show that cameras aren't saving lives. You're just another sad extremist cycling forum nutter who wants to see most motorists bullied off the roads, and you think that a saturation of cameras is the most realistic way of achieving that in the short term, since every driver speeds.

Why do you suppose that we, Safe Speed and other camera opponents are constantly trying to expose the RTTM effect, whereas Brake, SCPs and Labour politicians are constantly and fraudulently ignoring it? They know the effect exists, so why do we keep hearing this "accidents down x% at camera sites" rubbish? Why do these people keep deliberately mixing up going too fast and exceeding the speed limit? Why do they keep committing these various frauds and exaggerating the benefits of cameras, and why do you accept it? Answer: because both they and you have your own selfish reasons why you want cameras to proliferate, and you prioritise those reasons above saving people's lives. It's pathetic and it's outrageous, and you should be utterly ashamed.

Edited by GPSHead on Sunday 6th April 08:28

[Busamav]

slim_boy_fat said:

Keep speeding to sensible limits on sensible roads is my take on it.

and it only luck that stops us having an accident.

I came round a bend once a couple fo years ago to find a cow in the middle of the road, fortunately i was only going at 40mph in a car, but i could have easily been doing 60 on the bike and the outcome may have been very different.

That was dumb and lucky .

Most riders I go out with dont ever put luck in the equation

Edited by Busamav on Sunday 6th April 09:51

[Andy Zarse]

GPSHead said:

thewurzel said:

black-k1 said:

Note that moving anywhere to the left of the 85th percentile point causes an increase in risk.

You are showing the basic flaw with Safe Speed, it doesn't really matter what causes the crash - lots of things cause crashes, higher speed crashes are generally worse than lower speed crashes.

Do you speed? Do you do it more than 4 times every 3 years? Just a "yes" or a "no" will do.

And you know perfectly well that the stuff on Safe Speed stacks up. You know perfectly well that going too fast and exceeding the speed limit are completely different, and that the former is far more important than the latter. You know perfectly well that there is a huge difference between impact speed and free-travelling speed. You know perfectly well that the figures show that cameras aren't saving lives. You're just another sad extremist cycling forum nutter who wants to see most motorists bullied off the roads, and you think that a saturation of cameras is the most realistic way of achieving that in the short term, since every driver speeds.

Why do you suppose that we, Safe Speed and other camera opponents are constantly trying to expose the RTTM effect, whereas Brake, SCPs and Labour politicians are constantly and fraudulently ignoring it? They know the effect exists, so why do we keep hearing this "accidents down x% at camera sites" rubbish? Why do these people keep deliberately mixing up going too fast and exceeding the speed limit? Why do they keep committing these various frauds and exaggerating the benefits of cameras, and why do you accept it? Answer: because both they and you have your own selfish reasons why you want cameras to proliferate, and you prioritise those reasons above saving people's lives. It's pathetic and it's outrageous, and you should be utterly ashamed.

Edited by GPSHead on Sunday 6th April 08:28

Ignore him, Wurzel is a troll. And he's a smarmy loathsome oily little creep into the bargain. There is no point discussing anything with him; his raison d'etre on PH is to NEVER CONCEDE A POINT. EVER!

[Guybrush]

Safespeed has for years offered an open forum on that site for anyone to challenge the facts and figures. All on that site is proven and substantiated. What can't be stopped is hysteria from leftist government lackeys who actually do not want to "understand" what is said. Anything that counters their control freakery and simplistic belief systems is purposely ignored. They are very likely the same people who buy into to this human-created climate change hysteria - additionally, their ancestors are very likey those who believed the earth was flat (backed up by their own "scientists" of course with manipulated data) and punished severely anyone who dared challenge those "beliefs" despite the proper scientific evidence.

[slim_boy_fat]

Busamav said:

slim_boy_fat said:

Keep speeding to sensible limits on sensible roads is my take on it.

and it only luck that stops us having an accident.

I came round a bend once a couple fo years ago to find a cow in the middle of the road, fortunately i was only going at 40mph in a car, but i could have easily been doing 60 on the bike and the outcome may have been very different.

That was dumb and lucky .

Most riders I go out with dont ever put luck in the equation

Edited by Busamav on Sunday 6th April 09:51

Which part was dumb, the driving a car part or only doing 40mph.

You make no sense.

Luck pays a massive part in everything we do in life, if you dont recognise this then you are a tw@t or must be about 12 years old.

Edited by slim_boy_fat on Sunday 6th April 18:14

[thewurzel]

GPSHead said:

Do you speed? Do you do it more than 4 times every 3 years? Just a "yes" or a "no" will do.

No, why do you ask?

GPSHead said:

And you know perfectly well that the stuff on Safe Speed stacks up.

It's been pretty well disproved by everyone who doesn't wish it to be true. Most Safe Speed supporters either don't understand the facts (and are easily confused by the graphs etc taken out of context), or just need a way to justify their own speeding, a site with out of context statistics does that nicely.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk:8080/web/public.ns... should start you off

GPSHead said:

You know perfectly well that going too fast and exceeding the speed limit are completely different

They are completely different concepts, but are often essensially the same - that is why speed limits exist - but to admit that would be to admit that exceeding them can be dangerous.

GPSHead said:

You're just another sad extremist cycling forum nutter who wants to see most motorists bullied off the roads, and you think that a saturation of cameras is the most realistic way of achieving that in the short term, since every driver speeds.

Bullying drivers off the roads wouldn't make driving very easy, so I'd be shooting myself in the foot there. Bullying dangerous/illegal drivers off the road, now that's another thing entirely.

Every driver does not speed, and "everyone does it" is not an excuse for breaking a law. It's a 10 year old's excuse when they've been caught doing something they shouldn't.

GPSHead said:

Why do you suppose that we, Safe Speed and other camera opponents

I think that people who enjoy speeding try to discredit cameras so that they can speed where they like without being caught. The same people would complain, if there were more traffic police (marked or unmarked cars), that their time could be better spent catching "real" criminals.

GPSHead said:

whereas Brake, SCPs and Labour politicians are constantly and fraudulently ignoring it?
They know the effect exists, so why do we keep hearing this "accidents down x% at camera sites" rubbish?

Probably because accidents are down x% at camera sites. They don't just make these figures up, you know.

I'm impressed with the organisation of this conspiracy, charities, councils, MPs all involved... With no personal gain for any of them.

GPSHead said:

Why do these people keep deliberately mixing up going too fast and exceeding the speed limit?

If you are exceeding the speed limit, you are going too fast to comply with the laws of the land.

GPSHead said:

Why do they keep committing these various frauds and exaggerating the benefits of cameras, and why do you accept it? Answer: because both they and you have your own selfish reasons why you want cameras to proliferate

What is my selfish reason for supporting cameras then? I don't find wanting safer roads selfish at all.

GPSHead said:

It's pathetic and it's outrageous, and you should be utterly ashamed.

Why do you think that not having the right to go as fast as you want with no comeback to you is pathetic and outrageous? There isn't a country in the world where it's acceptable to think so selfishly.

Guybrush said:

Safespeed has for years offered an open forum on that site for anyone to challenge the facts and figures.

Have you seen the reactions you get here, on a general motoring website for disagreeing with SS? Let alone on their official forum (if you don't get banned for deviating from the official line)

Guybrush said:

All on that site is proven and substantiated.

People on the site's own forum don't count. They're hardly unbiased. See http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk:8080/web/public.ns... for some info on some of Safe Speed's claims. It would be nice for you to actually read it rather than simply dismissing the guy as "car hating" simply because he disagrees with you.

Guybrush said:

What can't be stopped is hysteria from leftist government lackeys who actually do not want to "understand" what is said. Anything that counters their control freakery and simplistic belief systems is purposely ignored. They are very likely the same people who buy into to this human-created climate change hysteria - additionally, their ancestors are very likey those who believed the earth was flat (backed up by their own "scientists" of course with manipulated data) and punished severely anyone who dared challenge those "beliefs" despite the proper scientific evidence.

And remind me what's in it for them again? Safer roads, obviously, but what else? In your response, consider that SCPs don't make a profit, have shareholders to pay bonuses to, send their staff on lavish holidays with the proceeds from fines... etc

Andy Zarse said:

Ignore him, Wurzel is a troll. And he's a smarmy loathsome oily little creep into the bargain. There is no point discussing anything with him; his raison d'etre on PH is to NEVER CONCEDE A POINT. EVER!

How's the chip on your shoulder, Andy? Are you really expecting me to turn around and say that I've completely changed my opinions on speed cameras, due to a few insults from you?

Edited by thewurzel on Sunday 6th April 22:40

[supersingle]

Thewurzel, would you like drivers to consider every aspect of their driving environment and come to a considered decision on the speed at which they travel or would you prefer drivers to stick rigidly and unthinkingly to speed limits with no consideration for their surroundings?

You can't have it both ways.

[Rubin215]

Back again

black-k1 said:

OK – Here we go ………

Firstly, we must remember some key details which I think I can state without fear of contradiction:

Not so fast there...

black-k1 said:

1. Speed will always be a factor in accidents as if no one moved there would be no accidents but there would be no traveling either.

Agreed (in principle )

black-k1 said:

2. Accidents, by their nature, are random events that can not be predicted. All that can hope to be achieved is to influence the likelihood of such random events.

Actually, there has been quite a lot of time and money spent over the years doing exactly that; predicting road accidents. There are now detailed models telling us who is most likely to crash, where and how, as well as the probable outcomes!
Car manufacturers have been using them for years to design impact protection into their vehicles.

However, to describe them as "acidents" is slightly incorrect. An accident is more accurately described as "an un-planned, uncontrolled event leading to injury or loss."

While road traffic collisons are seldom actually planned (other than the fraudulent ones) few of them are truly "random" in that most could be predicted as likely to happen given the combination of factors leading up to them (a drunk, one eyed, sleep apnoeiac, driving a poorly maintained car with bald tyres and only one headlight at 120 mph on an icy "B" class road at 3 am in fog while sending angry text messages to his estranged wife is unlikely to get home safely now is he? ).

black-k1 said:

3. Human beings are not machines and make mistakes.

Unfortunately yes.
I lived with a fat, ugly woman for ten years (although that has little to do with this debate!).

It is precisely because humans make mistakes that we need to plan to mitigate their effects.

black-k1 said:

It all depends on how you interoperate the figures. ABD have looked at the same figures and The ABD has read TRL511 in detail and has found that the initial assessment of 174 rural roads showed that accidents FELL with higher speeds rather than rose, because there were fewer hazards on the roads where people drove faster.http://www.abd.org.uk/trl511.htm

Yes, I had a look at the ABD website; they appear to have forgotten the smileys too...

"TRL 421 and TRL511 are the illegitimate love twins of "Finch et al", dealing with urban and rural roads respectively."

Oh come on now; do you really want me to take them seriously?

And who gave them the right to title themselves "The voice of the driver?"
I'm a driver and they certainly don't speak for me.

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

If only Britain had the same attitude!

Agreed, but also a government who encouraged it’s drivers to take those attitudes.

Have you ever seen anything from the government encouraging you otherwise?

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

And if everyone drove more slowly in the first place, that "magic" 85th percentile would also be slower.

To establish the 85th percentile you need to start with free traffic flow, not a traffic flow that is already artificially restricted to an arbitrary maximum speed. I’m surprised at you Rubin215, that’s pretty basic stuff!

Yes, very basic actually.
So basic that the safespeed website can't even get it right; "The 85th percentile speed is the speed which 85% of the vehicles are not exceeding."
No mention of "free traffic flow" or "arbitrary maximum speed" (however, according to you, everyone pretty much drives as fast as they like anyway... ).

And, as already stated, if everyone drove more slowly in the first place then the speed which 85% never exceeded would be slower.

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

Okay, I'll be honest; I took one look at the irrational ramblings on the home page and went no further.You should not need research to know that this view is true.
There may well be some useful info there somewhere (in every extremist's mind is a glimmer of reason) but I have better things to do than go look.

I hope that’s meant as humor (no smily again!) as if it’s not it's a pretty ignorant statement! To be involved in a debate on something as important as road safety on a public form and then to state I have better things to do than go look when someone suggests that there is key information available is arrogant and immature.

Okay, I admit, I have read more than just the homepage, and the more I read, the more I laugh.

How poorly written, how many assumptions, how much claimed proof;

"Plenty of research has shown..."
"Research shows that..."
"You should not need research to know that this view is true."
"There is ample scientific research to support the view too."

and all from just one page.

Really Black-k1, would you buy double glazing from a website that can't even list their research or their proof?

black-k1 said:

It is worth mentioning something from the Safe Speed site, their editorial policy. It states:
We have a strict editorial policy regarding factual content. If any fact anywhere on this web site can be shown to be incorrect we promise to remove it or correct it as soon as possible. This is stated on just about every page on the site.

And I'm supposed to believe that am I?
Just how quickly do you expect a site which doesn't list their research sources yet openly mocks the work of others to correct their mistakes?

black-k1 said:

If your vehicle will avoid ‘self destruction’ simply because you are traveling 10mph slower then your vehicle is not road worthy and there are rules regarding the road worthiness of vehicles.

Actually there aren't, there are laws and regulations (but that's splitting hairs).
The only regular check of a vehicles "roadworthiness" is the mot test, and this only takes place once a year for a vehicle once it is three years old.
There are thousands of vehicles less than three years old which I would consider unsafe, and many more with valid mot's in similar condition.

The mot test itself is a very basic test of the main components of a vehicle and does not in any way guarantee the mechanical condition of the engine and gearbox beyond simple emission tests and a visual for excessive oil leaks. I have previously mot'd a trike which had a "pot of soup" gearbox where you simply stirred it until a gear went home and an escort which would only run for twenty minutes from cold before the engine siezed again; neither of them exactly safe yet not covered in any way by any laws or regulations.
I still maintain (little pun there ) that running any machine at a slower speed will prolong it's safe useable life; from printing press's to battleships.

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

one potential way of reducing the incidence of RTC's is for everyone to reduce their speed.

Simply re-stating an opinion does not suddenly make it fact. The actual research done on this subject (that produced the 85th percentile rule) disagrees with you.

So where is this research? When was it carried out and by whom?
My evidence for the statement is backed up by the TRL studies quoted previously; it is not just an opinion, there is adequate research to prove it.

black-k1 said:

German autobahns are, on average, much faster than UK motorways and are not significantly more dangerous which proves reducing the speed does not necessarily make things safer.

And can you show me the figures to back this claim up?

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

black-k1 said:

While it is not a justification I would suggest that the majority of road users are ‘habitual speeders’ as independent surveys have shown that most drivers/riders regularly exceed the speed limit.

And when my dad was my age, the majority of road users were drink drivers.
Times change, move on.

The difference is that it can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that alcohol increases the danger to all road users and alcohol serves no benefit in road usage. As has already been stated, speed is a necessity. The question is simply what is the safest speed? (What speed would you like me to move on at? )

And as previously shown, several reports prove beyond all reasonable doubt that excessive speed increases the danger to all road users!

I'll let you decide the speed you want to move on at; it's your license, your life, and the odds of you unfortunately harming me with your excessive speed are slight.

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

Rather than the majority of drivers not getting enough mental stimulation I would argue that the majority of drivers do not pay enough attention to the task they are performing; driving or riding!

Agreed, but the question is why are they not concentrating? I would suggest that it is at least partly because they have been conditioned over the last 15 years to believe that road safety is measured on their speedometer and that as long as they remain within the limit they are safe and don’t need to concentrate further. In fact, if they reduce their speed by another 10mph they will be even safer and will have to concentrated even less!

Concentration does not depend upon speed; try Tai Chi.
I think we are in agreement that the current standard of vehicle training is poor, however until that can be raised so that road users are more observant, focussed and skilled, the easiest way to temper the inept, ignorant dullard is to slow him down.

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

Driving at 10 mph below the speed limit certainly improves you chances of not being killed or seriously injured in a road accident today or any other day.

As evidence I quote Taylor, Baruya and Kennedy (quoted above);

"The percentage reduction in accident frequency per 1mile/h reduction in mean speed implied by the relationship developed for total accidents depends on the mean speed. It ranges from 9% at a mean speed of 27 miles/h to 4% at a mean speed of 60 miles/h."

But more recent statistics have shown this to be wrong.

Which, where, when and who?

black-k1 said:

Ride safe and enjoy.

And you brother, and you.





Edited to add a few more smilies. Just to make sure.

Edited by Rubin215 on Monday 7th April 00:16

[thewurzel]

supersingle said:

Thewurzel, would you like drivers to consider every aspect of their driving environment and come to a considered decision on the speed at which they travel or would you prefer drivers to stick rigidly and unthinkingly to speed limits with no consideration for their surroundings?

You can't have it both ways.

Having a speed limit does not mean that you have to drive at that speed, but you can choose a safe speed at or below it. In every day driving, it is never necessary to exceed the speed limit on the grounds of safety.

Why can't you make a considered decision about what non speed limit exceeding speed to drive at?

Rubin215 said:

Really Black-k1, would you buy double glazing from a website that can't even list their research or their proof?

Safe Speed doesn't need facts or logic, they have pretty graphs!

Edited by thewurzel on Monday 7th April 00:22