Speeding causes 3x as many deaths as previously thought...
Discussion
vonhosen said:
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.
So what constitutes excessive speed depends on who is driving.
How can the statistics reflect that?
Kawasicki said:
vonhosen said:
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.
So what constitutes excessive speed depends on who is driving.
How can the statistics reflect that?
Not being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear & reasonably expect to remain so.
In the absence of other factors, if you can stop in the distance available & don't hit it, but I can't & do, I was likely to be driving too fast for the conditions.
The investigator will have the information available to make the determinations.
We all have to drive within our & our vehicle's limitations at all times. (I don't after all take the same line & speed through a hazard in an artic that I do on my bike or car).
The point with the thread is, that assessment is going to be better made following the full investigation rather than at a very early stage in it.
And a collision doesn't automatically equate with too fast for the conditions.
The investigation is to determine which factors were contributory.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 18th May 07:35
vonhosen said:
bigothunter said:
Kawasicki said:
So what constitutes excessive speed depends on who is driving.
All speed is excessive if an accident ensues. Even 1 mph can be too fast. There is only one safe speed and that's zero.* ref Vision Zero
bigothunter said:
vonhosen said:
bigothunter said:
Kawasicki said:
So what constitutes excessive speed depends on who is driving.
All speed is excessive if an accident ensues. Even 1 mph can be too fast. There is only one safe speed and that's zero.* ref Vision Zero
And is not at all relative to how collisions & their contributory factors are recorded.
Which is what the thread is about.
You are taking an extreme distorted position that is not applicable with & far from the reality of the investigative process into collisions.
You are even misrepresenting Vision zero. Vision zero doesn't demand zero speed within transport.
vonhosen said:
Kawasicki said:
vonhosen said:
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.
So what constitutes excessive speed depends on who is driving.
How can the statistics reflect that?
Not being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear & reasonably expect to remain so.
In the absence of other factors, if you can stop in the distance available & don't hit it, but I can't & do, I was likely to be driving too fast for the conditions.
The investigator will have the information available to make the determinations.
We all have to drive within our & our vehicle's limitations at all times. (I don't after all take the same line & speed through a hazard in an artic that I do on my bike or car).
The point with the thread is, that assessment is going to be better made following the full investigation rather than at a very early stage in it.
And a collision doesn't automatically equate with too fast for the conditions.
The investigation is to determine which factors were contributory.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 18th May 07:35
Isn’t excessive speed to blame for every incident/accident… if the definition of excessive speed is a speed that was too fast for the conditions?
Kawasicki said:
Isn’t excessive speed to blame for every incident/accident… if the definition of excessive speed is a speed that was too fast for the conditions?
Not it isn't.Look at the article.
Is the adjusted claim 100% for all accidents?
No it isn't.
It's somewhere between 40% & 64% for fatality collisions & that would be lower for other types of collisions.
vonhosen said:
But we aren't in that position. It's not the reality.
And is not at all relative to how collisions & their contributory factors are recorded.
Which is what the thread is about.
You are taking an extreme distorted position that is not applicable with & far from the reality of the investigative process into collisions.
You are even misrepresenting Vision zero. Vision zero doesn't demand zero speed within transport.
Vision Zero is a multi-national road traffic safety project that aims to achieve a highway system with no fatalities or serious injuries involving road traffic. It started in Sweden and was approved by their parliament in October 1997.And is not at all relative to how collisions & their contributory factors are recorded.
Which is what the thread is about.
You are taking an extreme distorted position that is not applicable with & far from the reality of the investigative process into collisions.
You are even misrepresenting Vision zero. Vision zero doesn't demand zero speed within transport.
If vehicles move, that goal is not possible. Even so, slower is always safer because there is less kinetic energy to cause damage when collisions occur.
bigothunter said:
vonhosen said:
But we aren't in that position. It's not the reality.
And is not at all relative to how collisions & their contributory factors are recorded.
Which is what the thread is about.
You are taking an extreme distorted position that is not applicable with & far from the reality of the investigative process into collisions.
You are even misrepresenting Vision zero. Vision zero doesn't demand zero speed within transport.
Vision Zero is a multi-national road traffic safety project that aims to achieve a highway system with no fatalities or serious injuries involving road traffic. It started in Sweden and was approved by their parliament in October 1997.And is not at all relative to how collisions & their contributory factors are recorded.
Which is what the thread is about.
You are taking an extreme distorted position that is not applicable with & far from the reality of the investigative process into collisions.
You are even misrepresenting Vision zero. Vision zero doesn't demand zero speed within transport.
If vehicles move, that goal is not possible. Even so, slower is always safer because there is less kinetic energy to cause damage when collisions occur.
You are extrapolating to an extreme something that is not there.
Do they have zero movement in Sweden?
And is Vision Zero UK Policy?
Strawman.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 18th May 08:10
vonhosen said:
Kawasicki said:
Isn’t excessive speed to blame for every incident/accident… if the definition of excessive speed is a speed that was too fast for the conditions?
Not it isn't.Look at the article.
Is the adjusted claim 100% for all accidents?
No it isn't.
It's somewhere between 40% & 64% for fatality collisions & that would be lower for other types of collisions.
vonhosen said:
Kawasicki said:
Isn’t excessive speed to blame for every incident/accident… if the definition of excessive speed is a speed that was too fast for the conditions?
Not it isn't.Look at the article.
Is the adjusted claim 100% for all accidents?
No it isn't.
It's somewhere between 40% & 64% for fatality collisions & that would be lower for other types of collisions.
Kawasicki said:
vonhosen said:
Kawasicki said:
Isn’t excessive speed to blame for every incident/accident… if the definition of excessive speed is a speed that was too fast for the conditions?
Not it isn't.Look at the article.
Is the adjusted claim 100% for all accidents?
No it isn't.
It's somewhere between 40% & 64% for fatality collisions & that would be lower for other types of collisions.
You've just said the reason was because they weren't looking, not because the speed was excessive whether that be 60mph or 40mph.
vonhosen said:
Where is the goal in that statement of zero speed, zero injury, zero damage or zero collisions?
Absolute Safety is the goal.vonhosen said:
You are extrapolating to an extreme something that is not there.
Vision Zero is here. Yes I'm extrapolating to 'end points' which is an established scientific technique. Provides clarity rather than getting bogged down in all the central noise 'mush'. Then a sensible solution can be developed.
Take deaths per 1 billion vehicle.kms:
UK motorways 0.8 (roads overall 3.4)
German autobahns 1.6 (roads overall 4.2)
US roads overall 7.3 (with large proportion of divided carriageways and freeways plus low traffic density)
Where would you apply stringent speed control? UK motorways like today's focus?
vonhosen said:
And is Vision Zero UK Policy?
Already declared policy in London, Devon and Cornwall:https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/safety-and-security/r...
https://visionzerosouthwest.co.uk/
vonhosen said:
Strawman.
Fishface 
Kawasicki said:
If a driver crashes and dies because they haven’t looked properly whilst driving at 60mph, but they would have not been badly injured if they had also not looked properly whilst driving at 40mph, was excessive speed to blame for the death?
Kinetic energy at 60mph is 125% greater than at 40mph. In the event of a crash, KE is very significant. Going slowly improves safety.bigothunter said:
vonhosen said:
Where is the goal in that statement of zero speed, zero injury, zero damage or zero collisions?
Absolute Safety is the goal.It's about deaths & serious injuries, which is laudable.
Would you rather there be no deaths or serious injuries, or would you rather there be deaths & serious injuries?
bigothunter said:
vonhosen said:
You are extrapolating to an extreme something that is not there.
Vision Zero is here. Yes I'm extrapolating to 'end points' which is an established scientific technique. Provides clarity rather than getting bogged down in all the central noise 'mush'. Then a sensible solution can be developed.
Take deaths per 1 billion vehicle.kms:
UK motorways 0.8 (roads overall 3.4)
German autobahns 1.6 (roads overall 4.2)
US roads overall 7.3 (with large proportion of divided carriageways and freeways plus low traffic density)
Where would you apply stringent speed control? UK motorways like today's focus?
The aim is a transport system (which will mean movement) where people don't die or are seriously injured.
Is that not a desirable aim?
bigothunter said:
vonhosen said:
And is Vision Zero UK Policy?
Already declared policy in London, Devon and Cornwall:https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/safety-and-security/r...
https://visionzerosouthwest.co.uk/
And it's a vision for 20 years time.
If people in London & the South West don't like it in their cities they can be rid of those in power now & change things long before then.
vonhosen said:
Kawasicki said:
vonhosen said:
Kawasicki said:
Isn’t excessive speed to blame for every incident/accident… if the definition of excessive speed is a speed that was too fast for the conditions?
Not it isn't.Look at the article.
Is the adjusted claim 100% for all accidents?
No it isn't.
It's somewhere between 40% & 64% for fatality collisions & that would be lower for other types of collisions.
You've just said the reason was because they weren't looking, not because the speed was excessive whether that be 60mph or 40mph.
bigothunter said:
Kawasicki said:
If a driver crashes and dies because they haven’t looked properly whilst driving at 60mph, but they would have not been badly injured if they had also not looked properly whilst driving at 40mph, was excessive speed to blame for the death?
Kinetic energy at 60mph is 125% greater than at 40mph. In the event of a crash, KE is very significant. Going slowly improves safety.Kawasicki said:
vonhosen said:
Kawasicki said:
vonhosen said:
Kawasicki said:
Isn’t excessive speed to blame for every incident/accident… if the definition of excessive speed is a speed that was too fast for the conditions?
Not it isn't.Look at the article.
Is the adjusted claim 100% for all accidents?
No it isn't.
It's somewhere between 40% & 64% for fatality collisions & that would be lower for other types of collisions.
You've just said the reason was because they weren't looking, not because the speed was excessive whether that be 60mph or 40mph.
If anyone had did what he did in those circumstances (not looked) they'd have crashed. That's the contributory factor, not excessive speed.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff