Speeding causes 3x as many deaths as previously thought...
Discussion
colin_p said:
vonhosen said:
The focus is the fatal five.
1) Careless driving
2) Drink/Drugs driving
3) Mobile phones
4) No seatbelt
5) Excess speed.
The main focus is on Nr.5 as it makes the most money, costs the least and provides a whole industry of jobs for the boys. Excessive speed is also very subjective. Usually excessive against a speed limit arbitrarily decided to maximise revenue where previously there was a perfectly reasonable speed limit.1) Careless driving
2) Drink/Drugs driving
3) Mobile phones
4) No seatbelt
5) Excess speed.
A driver could do all of Nrs. 1 to 4 at the same time and is unlikely to get caught, particularly if they don't break the speed limit.
colin_p said:
Usually excessive against a speed limit arbitrarily decided to maximise revenue where previously there was a perfectly reasonable speed limit.
Which is purely your subjective opinion.oyster said:
Chrisgr31 said:
Super Sonic said:
Surely most collisions are caused by excessive speed. This a completely different thing to exceeding the speed limit however.
Doesnt that depend on the circumstances. I drive round a corner at 60mph leave the road hit a tree and kill myself. Is it excessive speed or is it me driving beyond my ability or the ability of my car? What if 99.9% of traffic goes round that corner at 60mph and its only me that crashes?If you drive at a speed beyond the capabilities of yourself or your vehicle and lose control or hit something, then it's excessive speed.
I think I got it.
jm doc said:
vonhosen said:
I don't find our limits either inappropriately low or draconian in their enforcement by & large.
And yet over the last decade there has been a wholesale and significant reduction in speed limits nationwide with a concomitant huge increase in enforcement and drivers penalised as a result. So you have supported that?Have IQ's dropped that much, or are today's motorists just very slow learners?
jm doc said:
vonhosen said:
I don't find our limits either inappropriately low or draconian in their enforcement by & large.
And yet over the last decade there has been a wholesale and significant reduction in speed limits nationwide with a concomitant huge increase in enforcement and drivers penalised as a result. So you have supported that?I support democracy & democratically elected governments as well as periodic reviews of limits. Periodic reviews seem sensible to me as things change with time.
That review resulted in some limits reducing, some staying the same & some increasing.
I wouldn't really expect anything different after a review than that. (Admittedly more reduced than increased, but some did increase with the vast majority staying the same).
There isn't huge enforcement.
94% of drivers have zero penalty points on their licence (from any offending, not just speed offences).
Traffic officer numbers have reduced with the squeeze on budgets.
Cameras on the other hand are static & cover only a very small percentage of the entire road network. Their locations are not a secret, they are well publicised & pretty predictable. They don't employ a zero tolerance with that enforcement, but they do deploy a graduated disposal & penalty system.
For someone who wants or intends to speed that looks to me like a favourable/preferred system & deployment.
You know exactly where you stand for what speed you intend to exceed the limit.
You know where they are likely to be etc.
On the other hand with officers doing speed enforcement you don't know where they are going to be & you are open to the vagaries of their own prejudices/bias etc when it comes to the action they may take.
For a simple black/white offence it's also a waste of highly trained, expensive, valuable resource. They are better being tasked with other things.
I also happen to prefer a system with a slightly lower limit & larger threshold before prosecution (as we have here).
Than a slightly higher limit with a lower threshold before prosecutions (as happens in a lot of continental Europe).
I'd rather not be banned & have my licence confiscated at the roadside (even before we've had the court hearing) & also have my vehicle impounded at the same time, as might happen in France, for a speed in excess of the limit that would more than likely see you with 6 points here.
How many times have you exceeded the limit?
How many courses?
How many FPNs?
How many points?
How many court appearances?
How many bans?
In four decades, despite a lot of exceeding limits in that time, I've had none as yet.
If I keep rolling dice I expect it may catch up with me at some point though.
But given all that it doesn't stack up as a very oppressive penal system in relation to speed enforcement does it?
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 17th May 22:32
Kawasicki said:
So if you are not capable of looking out the windscreen because you’re updating your Facebook profile and you hit something, then the crash was due to excessive speed.
I think I got it.
Correct, the speed for updating your Facebook profile is 0mph. If you are going any faster than that then it is excessive speed, even if you don't have a crash.I think I got it.
Kawasicki said:
vonhosen said:
Failing extreme conditions (which of course can occur & there'd be evidence of in an investigation), If you couldn't stop in the distance you could see to be clear (& reasonably expect to remain so), on your side of the road.
Then there is a good chance you were demonstrably driving too fast for the conditions, irrespective of how good one might think they are.
It would be a failure in respect of the most basic tenant of safe driving.
No. I‘ve trained hundreds of drivers to emergency brake. The vast majority of drivers don’t know how to brake fully. When they crash, was it because they were driving too quickly for the conditions, or because they couldn’t brake properly?Then there is a good chance you were demonstrably driving too fast for the conditions, irrespective of how good one might think they are.
It would be a failure in respect of the most basic tenant of safe driving.
You're correct that most don't know how to use the brake effectively at all.
In general they can exploit the available performance with the throttle quite easily but don't do anywhere near as well when it comes to the brakes.
On the subject of judgement, most over estimate the space required to stop at low speeds but under estimate it at higher speeds.
If you can't stop in the distance you can see to be clear (& reasonably expect to remain so) on your side of the road. It's too fast for you.
Do you see all the you's in there?
It's a basic tenant in safe driving & personal responsibility in speed management.
NGee said:
Kawasicki said:
So if you are not capable of looking out the windscreen because you’re updating your Facebook profile and you hit something, then the crash was due to excessive speed.
I think I got it.
Correct, the speed for updating your Facebook profile is 0mph. If you are going any faster than that then it is excessive speed, even if you don't have a crash.I think I got it.
I accept most speed limits as they are set, however there are some situations that are harder to swallow. Oxfordshire has seemingly adopted an anti-road vehicle stance and imposed low speed limits for political reasons rather than safety interests. This is a subjective view, of course, but I live in Buckinghamshire and as my domicile is close to the Oxfordshire border, I often find myself in that county. The type of roads away from trunk roads are similar in either county, but there are far more 30mph stretches on country roads in Oxfordshire than in Bucks where there is no obvious safety benefit.
Another irritation is wrongly set variable limits on 'smart' motorways or those with variable limits. Wrong messages on motorway matrix signs that suggest there's a hazard ahead and clearly, having passed through, there is not. Perhaps there was a hazard, but it has cleared when I am travelling. Clever signs are counter-productive if as often as not they convey false instructions. Drivers become cynical and default to ignoring them until or unless they find the 'hazard' for themselves.
I would, and generally do, obey posted limits as I have no desire to incur penalties nor any points on my otherwise pristine licence. But I would obey much more willingly if I could certain that my estimated journey time could be relied upon. During the period between 1978 and 1989 I travelled by (company) car to the corners of the British mainland and except on rare occasions I could assume Manchester took, say, three and a half hours, and Cardiff, Newcastle on Tyne, Norwich, etcetera, the times empirically gleaned from previous drives. I count myself fortunate that I no longer need to make such treks because the few that I do make, in a personal capacity, are totally unpredictable because of grossly overcrowded roads and the consequent delays that frequently occur. The only predictable journey time is undertaken between midnight and six a.m. If HMG could sort the road network I would be happy with the restrictive nature of the law. As it is drivers find themselves behind schedule through no fault of their own, and they drive too quickly in a vain attempt to catch up and their driving ability suffers from the frustration.
If you really must drive illegally fast, do a track day; they're cheaper than a big fine, a disqualification, or (God forbid) a fatal accident!
Another irritation is wrongly set variable limits on 'smart' motorways or those with variable limits. Wrong messages on motorway matrix signs that suggest there's a hazard ahead and clearly, having passed through, there is not. Perhaps there was a hazard, but it has cleared when I am travelling. Clever signs are counter-productive if as often as not they convey false instructions. Drivers become cynical and default to ignoring them until or unless they find the 'hazard' for themselves.
I would, and generally do, obey posted limits as I have no desire to incur penalties nor any points on my otherwise pristine licence. But I would obey much more willingly if I could certain that my estimated journey time could be relied upon. During the period between 1978 and 1989 I travelled by (company) car to the corners of the British mainland and except on rare occasions I could assume Manchester took, say, three and a half hours, and Cardiff, Newcastle on Tyne, Norwich, etcetera, the times empirically gleaned from previous drives. I count myself fortunate that I no longer need to make such treks because the few that I do make, in a personal capacity, are totally unpredictable because of grossly overcrowded roads and the consequent delays that frequently occur. The only predictable journey time is undertaken between midnight and six a.m. If HMG could sort the road network I would be happy with the restrictive nature of the law. As it is drivers find themselves behind schedule through no fault of their own, and they drive too quickly in a vain attempt to catch up and their driving ability suffers from the frustration.
If you really must drive illegally fast, do a track day; they're cheaper than a big fine, a disqualification, or (God forbid) a fatal accident!
768 said:
motco said:
If you really must drive illegally fast, do a track day; they're cheaper than a big fine, a disqualification, or (God forbid) a fatal accident!
Stopping off for a track day isn't likely to help journey times. 
bigothunter said:
NMNeil said:
bigothunter said:
I thought 5) Excess Speed related to speed for the conditions not top speed. Limiting cars to 70mph top speed would not benefit safety in 30mph zones.
True, but it would be a start.https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-new...
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire...
NMNeil said:
bigothunter said:
NMNeil said:
bigothunter said:
I thought 5) Excess Speed related to speed for the conditions not top speed. Limiting cars to 70mph top speed would not benefit safety in 30mph zones.
True, but it would be a start.https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-new...
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire...
Ahmed, 27, is driving on the wrong side of the road and dangerously overtook a car on Garrison Lane, Bordesley Green, before he lost control, mounted the pavement and crashed into a tree at speeds estimated between 60mph and 65mph.
120mph in a 30 limit is extraordinary but 70mph would still have been very dangerous:
Leicestershire Police said Vinit Patel was driving at about 120mph (193km/h) in a 30mph (48km/h) zone before the car hit a tree in Leicester last January.
So not a vote of confidence in your 70mph speed limiter. I suspect its overall effect would be to do more harm than good rather than making suicidal drivers (like the two above) any safer.
motco said:
768 said:
motco said:
If you really must drive illegally fast, do a track day; they're cheaper than a big fine, a disqualification, or (God forbid) a fatal accident!
Stopping off for a track day isn't likely to help journey times. vonhosen said:
jm doc said:
vonhosen said:
I don't find our limits either inappropriately low or draconian in their enforcement by & large.
And yet over the last decade there has been a wholesale and significant reduction in speed limits nationwide with a concomitant huge increase in enforcement and drivers penalised as a result. So you have supported that?I support democracy & democratically elected governments as well as periodic reviews of limits. Periodic reviews seem sensible to me as things change with time.
That review resulted in some limits reducing, some staying the same & some increasing.
I wouldn't really expect anything different after a review than that. (Admittedly more reduced than increased, but some did increase with the vast majority staying the same).
There isn't huge enforcement.
94% of drivers have zero penalty points on their licence (from any offending, not just speed offences).
Traffic officer numbers have reduced with the squeeze on budgets.
Cameras on the other hand are static & cover only a very small percentage of the entire road network. Their locations are not a secret, they are well publicised & pretty predictable. They don't employ a zero tolerance with that enforcement, but they do deploy a graduated disposal & penalty system.
For someone who wants or intends to speed that looks to me like a favourable/preferred system & deployment.
You know exactly where you stand for what speed you intend to exceed the limit.
You know where they are likely to be etc.
On the other hand with officers doing speed enforcement you don't know where they are going to be & you are open to the vagaries of their own prejudices/bias etc when it comes to the action they may take.
For a simple black/white offence it's also a waste of highly trained, expensive, valuable resource. They are better being tasked with other things.
I also happen to prefer a system with a slightly lower limit & larger threshold before prosecution (as we have here).
Than a slightly higher limit with a lower threshold before prosecutions (as happens in a lot of continental Europe).
I'd rather not be banned & have my licence confiscated at the roadside (even before we've had the court hearing) & also have my vehicle impounded at the same time, as might happen in France, for a speed in excess of the limit that would more than likely see you with 6 points here.
How many times have you exceeded the limit?
How many courses?
How many FPNs?
How many points?
How many court appearances?
How many bans?
In four decades, despite a lot of exceeding limits in that time, I've had none as yet.
If I keep rolling dice I expect it may catch up with me at some point though.
But given all that it doesn't stack up as a very oppressive penal system in relation to speed enforcement does it?
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 17th May 22:32
These are by and large decided by civil servants who are not accountable, encouraged by "crusading public servants" who regularly appear to then get caught themselves. On some occasions locally they have not even been supported by the police but still went ahead with reduction.
Enforcement has rocketed. In Yorkshire, as a random example, the number of camera vans have quadrupled or more over the last few years as they are so lucrative, and they are seen virtually every day on the A1 through there, a 3 lane motorway standard road.
Sometimes I really do think you talk through your backside.
ks, all the tweet says is 'My name is Andy Cox and I want my name in lights...'Kawasicki said:
oyster said:
Chrisgr31 said:
Super Sonic said:
Surely most collisions are caused by excessive speed. This a completely different thing to exceeding the speed limit however.
Doesnt that depend on the circumstances. I drive round a corner at 60mph leave the road hit a tree and kill myself. Is it excessive speed or is it me driving beyond my ability or the ability of my car? What if 99.9% of traffic goes round that corner at 60mph and its only me that crashes?If you drive at a speed beyond the capabilities of yourself or your vehicle and lose control or hit something, then it's excessive speed.
I think I got it.
All that said however, if there’s a maximum speed at which such Facebook profile updating could be done without having the aforementioned crash, then any speed above this could be construed as excessive.
Similar to an earlier example in this thread of someone crashing at 10mph on an ungritted road in snow/ice. If the crash wouldn’t have happened at 9mph, then 10 would be excessive.
jm doc said:
vonhosen said:
jm doc said:
vonhosen said:
I don't find our limits either inappropriately low or draconian in their enforcement by & large.
And yet over the last decade there has been a wholesale and significant reduction in speed limits nationwide with a concomitant huge increase in enforcement and drivers penalised as a result. So you have supported that?I support democracy & democratically elected governments as well as periodic reviews of limits. Periodic reviews seem sensible to me as things change with time.
That review resulted in some limits reducing, some staying the same & some increasing.
I wouldn't really expect anything different after a review than that. (Admittedly more reduced than increased, but some did increase with the vast majority staying the same).
There isn't huge enforcement.
94% of drivers have zero penalty points on their licence (from any offending, not just speed offences).
Traffic officer numbers have reduced with the squeeze on budgets.
Cameras on the other hand are static & cover only a very small percentage of the entire road network. Their locations are not a secret, they are well publicised & pretty predictable. They don't employ a zero tolerance with that enforcement, but they do deploy a graduated disposal & penalty system.
For someone who wants or intends to speed that looks to me like a favourable/preferred system & deployment.
You know exactly where you stand for what speed you intend to exceed the limit.
You know where they are likely to be etc.
On the other hand with officers doing speed enforcement you don't know where they are going to be & you are open to the vagaries of their own prejudices/bias etc when it comes to the action they may take.
For a simple black/white offence it's also a waste of highly trained, expensive, valuable resource. They are better being tasked with other things.
I also happen to prefer a system with a slightly lower limit & larger threshold before prosecution (as we have here).
Than a slightly higher limit with a lower threshold before prosecutions (as happens in a lot of continental Europe).
I'd rather not be banned & have my licence confiscated at the roadside (even before we've had the court hearing) & also have my vehicle impounded at the same time, as might happen in France, for a speed in excess of the limit that would more than likely see you with 6 points here.
How many times have you exceeded the limit?
How many courses?
How many FPNs?
How many points?
How many court appearances?
How many bans?
In four decades, despite a lot of exceeding limits in that time, I've had none as yet.
If I keep rolling dice I expect it may catch up with me at some point though.
But given all that it doesn't stack up as a very oppressive penal system in relation to speed enforcement does it?
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 17th May 22:32
These are by and large decided by civil servants who are not accountable, encouraged by "crusading public servants" who regularly appear to then get caught themselves. On some occasions locally they have not even been supported by the police but still went ahead with reduction.
Enforcement has rocketed. In Yorkshire, as a random example, the number of camera vans have quadrupled or more over the last few years as they are so lucrative, and they are seen virtually every day on the A1 through there, a 3 lane motorway standard road.
Sometimes I really do think you talk through your backside.
How many camera vans in total now? Covering how many miles of roads in Yorkshire? What percentage of total road network available can they cover for how much of the day?
And you know where the favoured locations that they are going to place them ffs.
You didn't answer the questions again?
How many times you exceeded limits?
How many times you received point/bans?
The hit rate will be so small to be inconsequential.
And as I say, 94% of drivers have zero points (from any offences, not just speeding).
With just a little bit of nouse about when & where you can get away with it for decades.
You've got more chance of following through when you fart.
You need to get some perspective & worry about something statistically significant or even something that you can't largely control.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 18th May 00:26
bigothunter said:
70mph limiter would have had no effect on the first crash:
Ahmed, 27, is driving on the wrong side of the road and dangerously overtook a car on Garrison Lane, Bordesley Green, before he lost control, mounted the pavement and crashed into a tree at speeds estimated between 60mph and 65mph.
120mph in a 30 limit is extraordinary but 70mph would still have been very dangerous:
Leicestershire Police said Vinit Patel was driving at about 120mph (193km/h) in a 30mph (48km/h) zone before the car hit a tree in Leicester last January.
So not a vote of confidence in your 70mph speed limiter. I suspect its overall effect would be to do more harm than good rather than making suicidal drivers (like the two above) any safer.
"Hasan Razzaq recorded being driven around Bordesley Green at speeds of up to 100mph"Ahmed, 27, is driving on the wrong side of the road and dangerously overtook a car on Garrison Lane, Bordesley Green, before he lost control, mounted the pavement and crashed into a tree at speeds estimated between 60mph and 65mph.
120mph in a 30 limit is extraordinary but 70mph would still have been very dangerous:
Leicestershire Police said Vinit Patel was driving at about 120mph (193km/h) in a 30mph (48km/h) zone before the car hit a tree in Leicester last January.
So not a vote of confidence in your 70mph speed limiter. I suspect its overall effect would be to do more harm than good rather than making suicidal drivers (like the two above) any safer.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-new...
I could undoubtedly find a lot more instances, but you get the idea.
Fact is, some drivers can't be trusted with fast cars, so just like dealing with children, they get their toys taken away.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff