Speeding causes 3x as many deaths as previously thought...
Discussion
vonhosen said:
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.
Identical behaviour, except for the speed. 40mph was safe, 60mph fatal. How can you say that the higher speed didn’t contribute?
Kawasicki said:
vonhosen said:
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.
Identical behaviour, except for the speed. 40mph was safe, 60mph fatal. How can you say that the higher speed didn’t contribute?
The Kinetic energy involved in his crash killed the other.
The level of Kinetic energy involved isn't a recordable contributory factor, driving too fast for the conditions is.
Nothing in what you said would lead to driving too fast for the conditions being a recordable contributory factor.
vonhosen said:
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?
I do not enjoy seeing people getting mangled...Would you rather there be no deaths or serious injuries, or would you rather there be deaths & serious injuries?
But zero deaths or serious injuries is not realistic for any transport system. A sensible balance needs to be struck.
vonhosen said:
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?
Yes but zero deaths or serious injuries is not realistic for any transport system. A sensible balance needs to be struck.Is that not a desirable aim?
vonhosen said:
Not nationally legislated & it doesn't play a part in collision investigation. 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.
I'm interested in the future and 20 years is not far away. 'Democracy' does not work like that and you know it... 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.
Is excessive speed dangerous? Yes.
Should we take steps to properly analyse the cause of accidents, including reviewing and updating when more information becomes available later? Yes.
Is it a good idea to have a data-led road safety policy that incorporates this approach? Yes.
Do I believe the powers that be will correctly analyse the data available, come to valid conclusions, implement policies that properly address the root causes, and have an effective feedback loop that will see policies changed if not sufficiently effective? Absolutely not.
Should we take steps to properly analyse the cause of accidents, including reviewing and updating when more information becomes available later? Yes.
Is it a good idea to have a data-led road safety policy that incorporates this approach? Yes.
Do I believe the powers that be will correctly analyse the data available, come to valid conclusions, implement policies that properly address the root causes, and have an effective feedback loop that will see policies changed if not sufficiently effective? Absolutely not.
Kawasicki said:
Ok, I’m curious to see the approximately 50% of fatal accidents where speed/kinetic energy wasn’t thought to be a contributing factor.
Kinetic energy & 'a degree speed' are always present in collisions & will influence the severity of the outcome, but it is not a recordable contributory factor in them.What's the point, we know it is always present in them?
Driving too fast for the conditions or exceeding the sped limit are not always present in collisions, but they are recordable contributory factors in collisions.
bigothunter said:
vonhosen said:
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?
I do not enjoy seeing people getting mangled...Would you rather there be no deaths or serious injuries, or would you rather there be deaths & serious injuries?
But zero deaths or serious injuries is not realistic for any transport system. A sensible balance needs to be struck.
vonhosen said:
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?
Yes but zero deaths or serious injuries is not realistic for any transport system. A sensible balance needs to be struck.Is that not a desirable aim?
vonhosen said:
Not nationally legislated & it doesn't play a part in collision investigation. 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.
I'm interested in the future and 20 years is not far away. 'Democracy' does not work like that and you know it... 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.
If so we have common ground then.
vonhosen said:
So you support the vision, but will not acceptable absolutely an at all costs approach to achieve it?
If so we have common ground then.
I support reducing road deaths and serious injuries to realistic levels. We should be prioritising areas of high risk not motorway speeds.If so we have common ground then.
InitialDave captured the problem succinctly:
InitialDave said:
Is excessive speed dangerous? Yes.
Should we take steps to properly analyse the cause of accidents, including reviewing and updating when more information becomes available later? Yes.
Is it a good idea to have a data-led road safety policy that incorporates this approach? Yes.
Do I believe the powers that be will correctly analyse the data available, come to valid conclusions, implement policies that properly address the root causes, and have an effective feedback loop that will see policies changed if not sufficiently effective? Absolutely not.
Should we take steps to properly analyse the cause of accidents, including reviewing and updating when more information becomes available later? Yes.
Is it a good idea to have a data-led road safety policy that incorporates this approach? Yes.
Do I believe the powers that be will correctly analyse the data available, come to valid conclusions, implement policies that properly address the root causes, and have an effective feedback loop that will see policies changed if not sufficiently effective? Absolutely not.
bigothunter said:
vonhosen said:
So you support the vision, but will not acceptable absolutely an at all costs approach to achieve it?
If so we have common ground then.
I support reducing road deaths and serious injuries to realistic levels. We should be prioritising areas of high risk not motorway speeds.If so we have common ground then.
The fact it's not ignored doesn't mean it's a priority & regulation of speed is not just about safety.
bigothunter said:
InitialDave captured the problem succinctly:
I can accept that.InitialDave said:
Is excessive speed dangerous? Yes.
Should we take steps to properly analyse the cause of accidents, including reviewing and updating when more information becomes available later? Yes.
Is it a good idea to have a data-led road safety policy that incorporates this approach? Yes.
Do I believe the powers that be will correctly analyse the data available, come to valid conclusions, implement policies that properly address the root causes, and have an effective feedback loop that will see policies changed if not sufficiently effective? Absolutely not.
Should we take steps to properly analyse the cause of accidents, including reviewing and updating when more information becomes available later? Yes.
Is it a good idea to have a data-led road safety policy that incorporates this approach? Yes.
Do I believe the powers that be will correctly analyse the data available, come to valid conclusions, implement policies that properly address the root causes, and have an effective feedback loop that will see policies changed if not sufficiently effective? Absolutely not.
That's a trust issue.
I have a lot of honesty, openness & trust issues with MPs.
My current MP won't be getting my vote next time. I don't know who I'm voting for yet, I just know it will not be him.
Not sure anybody has pointed out the fact that these statistical abnormalities have been discovered reviewing data from London and Manchester amongst other places.
It seems to me if you look at an accident in an area where speeds are generally quite low and conclude speed is not the main cause that is reasonable. If you return later to analyse the situation again and find out one of the vehicles was travelling at 30mph in a 20mph zone that driver was 50% over the speed limit and therefore travelling with excess speed.
It's not unusual with these sorts of sensational discoveries for there to be some fundamental misunderstanding somewhere within the details. I'd put money on that being the case here.
It seems to me if you look at an accident in an area where speeds are generally quite low and conclude speed is not the main cause that is reasonable. If you return later to analyse the situation again and find out one of the vehicles was travelling at 30mph in a 20mph zone that driver was 50% over the speed limit and therefore travelling with excess speed.
It's not unusual with these sorts of sensational discoveries for there to be some fundamental misunderstanding somewhere within the details. I'd put money on that being the case here.
bigothunter said:
I support reducing road deaths and serious injuries to realistic levels. We should be prioritising areas of high risk not motorway speeds.
vonhosen said:
It's not a priority.
The fact it's not ignored doesn't mean it's a priority & regulation of speed is not just about safety.
The UK’s roads are home to around 7,000 speed cameras – the fourth highest amount in the world, beaten only by Russia, Italy, and Brazil.The fact it's not ignored doesn't mean it's a priority & regulation of speed is not just about safety.
There is no shortage of motorway cameras monitoring your every move on our main roads in the UK.
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/cameras/motorwa...
ingenieur said:
Not sure anybody has pointed out the fact that these statistical abnormalities have been discovered reviewing data from London and Manchester amongst other places.
It seems to me if you look at an accident in an area where speeds are generally quite low and conclude speed is not the main cause that is reasonable. If you return later to analyse the situation again and find out one of the vehicles was travelling at 30mph in a 20mph zone that driver was 50% over the speed limit and therefore travelling with excess speed.
It's not unusual with these sorts of sensational discoveries for there to be some fundamental misunderstanding somewhere within the details. I'd put money on that being the case here.
The first 20mph speed camera in Plymouth has already caught more than 23,500 speeding motorists – before even being fully switched on. During a test period prior to activation, the cameras detected more than 1,100 speeding drivers in just 24 hours.It seems to me if you look at an accident in an area where speeds are generally quite low and conclude speed is not the main cause that is reasonable. If you return later to analyse the situation again and find out one of the vehicles was travelling at 30mph in a 20mph zone that driver was 50% over the speed limit and therefore travelling with excess speed.
It's not unusual with these sorts of sensational discoveries for there to be some fundamental misunderstanding somewhere within the details. I'd put money on that being the case here.
https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2022-05-08/pl...
ingenieur said:
1.4m
Assuming a 60 fine. Not sure what it is these days.
Those caught travelling just over the stated speed limit will be offered an educational course, provided they have not completed one in the last three years. However, people caught offending above a certain threshold will face a £100 fine and three points, or be sent directly to court for higher speed offences.Assuming a 60 fine. Not sure what it is these days.
NMNeil said:
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.
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.
bigothunter said:
bigothunter said:
I support reducing road deaths and serious injuries to realistic levels. We should be prioritising areas of high risk not motorway speeds.
vonhosen said:
It's not a priority.
The fact it's not ignored doesn't mean it's a priority & regulation of speed is not just about safety.
The fact it's not ignored doesn't mean it's a priority & regulation of speed is not just about safety.
The UK’s roads are home to around 7,000 speed cameras – the fourth highest amount in the world, beaten only by Russia, Italy, and Brazil.
There is no shortage of motorway cameras monitoring your every move on our main roads in the UK.
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/cameras/motorwa...
We have 265,000 miles of roads in the UK, choose those where there aren't cameras to do your speeding.
7,000 cameras can only cover a fraction of that 265,000.
1,000 of those cameras are in a small area, London, too.
jm doc said:
NMNeil said:
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.
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.
I understand you live in the USA and are a former police officer? Do you have a gun?
NMNeil said:
jm doc said:
NMNeil said:
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.
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.
I understand you live in the USA and are a former police officer? Do you have a gun?
And you come on here and lecture us about speeding and car deaths? (around 250 deaths from exceeding the speed limit)
jm doc said:
NMNeil said:
jm doc said:
NMNeil said:
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.
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.
I understand you live in the USA and are a former police officer? Do you have a gun?
21,000 deaths last year by guns in the USA. Don't you think it's time your toys were taken away?
And you come on here and lecture us about speeding and car deaths? (around 250 deaths from exceeding the speed limit)
In 2020, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 45,222 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/w...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff