Speeding causes 3x as many deaths as previously thought...
Discussion
NGee said:
A vehicle can only cause an accident if it is moving.
It could fall off a trolley jack and crush you very slowly...But that's user error just as accidents are driver error. The inanimate car cannot cause an accident.
So the answer is to remove the muppet from behind the wheel. Fully autonomous driving mandated for all speeds above 20mph.
Edited by bigothunter on Monday 16th May 17:03
BlackWidow13 said:
vonhosen said:
DodgyGeezer said:
vonhosen said:
eg
You are driving along a long straight country road in good weather with a good dry road surface. It's a NSL & your speed is 50mph.
There are high hedge rows on both sides of the road & they are set back about 3m from the road. There are no junctions, entrances or breaks in the hedgerow. There is no other traffic in sight no warnings signs.
A deer jumps over the hedge & doesn't even land in the road in front of you to give you time to take evasive action. It lands on your bonnet.
Was your speed choice in the given circumstances unreasonable?
Was it excessive for the circumstances?
Was it a contributory factor in the collision?
For the stats = no.
They are attempting to identify unreasonable behaviour (in use of speed) & it's part as a contributory factor in collisions.
Not seeking to blame people who were behaving reasonably (in relation to speed) but happen to be involved in a collision. That's what your position on speed is more aligned to.
and yet if you were doing 70 and everything else was exactly the same speed would be down as a factor.....You are driving along a long straight country road in good weather with a good dry road surface. It's a NSL & your speed is 50mph.
There are high hedge rows on both sides of the road & they are set back about 3m from the road. There are no junctions, entrances or breaks in the hedgerow. There is no other traffic in sight no warnings signs.
A deer jumps over the hedge & doesn't even land in the road in front of you to give you time to take evasive action. It lands on your bonnet.
Was your speed choice in the given circumstances unreasonable?
Was it excessive for the circumstances?
Was it a contributory factor in the collision?
For the stats = no.
They are attempting to identify unreasonable behaviour (in use of speed) & it's part as a contributory factor in collisions.
Not seeking to blame people who were behaving reasonably (in relation to speed) but happen to be involved in a collision. That's what your position on speed is more aligned to.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 16th May 14:42
That's a preferable, palatable, considered & more reasonable position for me than simply all speed is a contributory factor.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 16th May 15:57
In your deer example, driving at 50 is, as you say, not a contributing factor to the accident, any more that it would have been had you been going at 35.
Drive at 70, and although you may be acting unreasonably by exceeding the speed limit, your speed is no more of a contributing factor to the accident than it was when you were driving at 50.
In just the same way as driving with a broken headlight, no MOT, or with your seatbelt would be a contributing factor to the accident.
Some of those factors (eg 70 mph, no seatbelt), might contribute to the severity of the outcome, but none of them contribute to the accident occurring in the first place.
This is why it’s important to differentiate between speed, above or below the limit or above or below what’s appropriate in the circs, as a causal contributor to the accident as opposed to a causal contributor to the severity of the outcome.
Bottom line is that unless you’re prepared to accept that the investigators have zero agenda, these types of investigative assessments are a way to write one’s own supporting evidence.
There is exceeding the limit as a contributory factor & separately, too fast for the conditions as one.
Investigators record what factors were present, not those that produce the data or may use it politically.
Sorry I feel I didn't make things clear from the response given earlier.
I was pointing out I was (by definition) behaving unreasonably by doing 70 so was in the wrong as far as an investigator is concerned & could be prosecuted for it. But that doesn't mean in the deer with me doing 70 example though, that it would be automatically recorded with as exceeding the limit as being a contributory factor in the collision by the investigator, certainly where it's landed on my bonnet. In the same way that a tyre below the legal tread depth wouldn't automatically be recorded as a contributory factor for a collision due to skidding on sheet ice (where tread depth has little or no bearing), when it may in the rain.
No seatbelt is likely to be a contributory factor in an injury collision for the non wearer where it is present. The collision is graded due to outcome (degree of injury), but it is a contributory factor in it being an injury collision.
So with the deer again it could be a contributory factor in it being a fatal collision happening, with me doing 70, where it can be shown that if I had been doing a road legal speed I wouldn't have likely been killed.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 16th May 20:23
NDNDNDND said:
vonhosen said:
I can accept a reasoned argument or need for speed limits as a risk control measure & don't consider them an unreasonable imposition per se with all things considered.
And I can accept that higher speeds do increase risk, particularly in severity of outcome.
Doesn't mean I never exceed them, but I accept the potential sanctions that exist for me doing so etc.
That's because it's a broad approach societal consideration in their existence or imposition. I can't expect it to be what I alone want & bugger what the rest of society wants. Even if I view our government(s) with contempt at times, I respect the democratic process of government & their ability as elected people to impose legislation that we are held accountable to as well as our freedom to campaign for or against legislative impositions &/or hold those who introduce them to account.
There's nothing wrong with speed limits, provided they are appropriate and the punishment for exceeding them is proportionate.And I can accept that higher speeds do increase risk, particularly in severity of outcome.
Doesn't mean I never exceed them, but I accept the potential sanctions that exist for me doing so etc.
That's because it's a broad approach societal consideration in their existence or imposition. I can't expect it to be what I alone want & bugger what the rest of society wants. Even if I view our government(s) with contempt at times, I respect the democratic process of government & their ability as elected people to impose legislation that we are held accountable to as well as our freedom to campaign for or against legislative impositions &/or hold those who introduce them to account.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 16th May 15:57
My concern with the police publicising rather skewed data like this is it will be used to justify inappropriately low speed limits and draconian, disproportionate punishments.
The problem with the proliferation of inappropriately low speed limits and draconian punishment is that they reduce respect for speed limits where they are important, and foster contempt for those that police the limits. Furthermore, inappropriately low speed limits will lead to the increase of a more dangerous driving behaviour - distracted driving.
Perhaps the future will be a higher number of lower-speed crashes. Is that better?
The differences from other countries are not in the main large, despite what people say (of course there are outliers). I accept that some other countries have slightly higher motorway limits, but that is mainly offset by us having a larger margin before prosecution than others & a less draconian (graduated) penalty/fines system.
That doesn't equate with me saying that all limits are appropriately set either.
Limits should be reviewed on a fairly regular basis (say once every decade or so).
I also think we have it mostly right in arterial routes tending to be set centrally & locals having more of a say in relation to local routes.
Re your last point
I'm for less serious crashes as a priority (because of the pain & suffering they cause) but fewer collisions all round.
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:
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.
It's easier to use automation in relation to Nr 5, but the others are not ignored.
vonhosen said:
See the post above yours for real estate.
It's easier to use automation in relation to Nr 5, but the others are not ignored.
The other 4 aren’t ignored, but you only have to look around at the number of speed cameras there are today to see that 80-90% of the focus is on speed. It's easier to use automation in relation to Nr 5, but the others are not ignored.
My casual observation tells me that mobile phone use - at least in slow moving or queued traffic is London - is absolutely endemic. Careless driving is pretty rife too. But there’s hardly any policing of these two because they require police, out in or on vehicles (or for phones, Cyclingmikey and his YT channel).
And if 80-90% of the focus is on speed, that creates a culture of looking for speed as the culprit because then something deliverable can be done to “lower what the available data tells us are the risks”.
This isn’t rocket science.
Sat in a hotel in Devon and the local news is all about speeding. Residents demanding 20mph because they bought a house on a main road.
The reality is whatever you want the stats to say you distort them. The fact is road deaths have fallen until we have got to around this figure consistently. It is hard to keep saying speeding kills more than all the other causes but easy to redefine the results.
In appropriate speed for the conditions is now being added, but when you keep telling people stick to the limit and you will be safe what do you expect.
And when the deaths appear to raise, then more restrictions, lower limits can be justified and if there is a raise in revenue as a result then great news.
The reality is whatever you want the stats to say you distort them. The fact is road deaths have fallen until we have got to around this figure consistently. It is hard to keep saying speeding kills more than all the other causes but easy to redefine the results.
In appropriate speed for the conditions is now being added, but when you keep telling people stick to the limit and you will be safe what do you expect.
And when the deaths appear to raise, then more restrictions, lower limits can be justified and if there is a raise in revenue as a result then great news.
BlackWidow13 said:
vonhosen said:
See the post above yours for real estate.
It's easier to use automation in relation to Nr 5, but the others are not ignored.
The other 4 aren’t ignored, but you only have to look around at the number of speed cameras there are today to see that 80-90% of the focus is on speed. It's easier to use automation in relation to Nr 5, but the others are not ignored.
My casual observation tells me that mobile phone use - at least in slow moving or queued traffic is London - is absolutely endemic. Careless driving is pretty rife too. But there’s hardly any policing of these two because they require police, out in or on vehicles (or for phones, Cyclingmikey and his YT channel).
And if 80-90% of the focus is on speed, that creates a culture of looking for speed as the culprit because then something deliverable can be done to “lower what the available data tells us are the risks”.
This isn’t rocket science.
The fact that speeding is easily dealt with by & perfectly suited to automation just means that it doesn't take many human resources from other activities & can be dealt with more efficiently. It also free's up those human resources to focus on the other 4.
To increase the human resources further will require far greater investment. Lobby your MP.
vonhosen said:
The human resources available are targeting the other 4, more so than those resources are dealing with targeted speed enforcement.
The fact that speeding is easily dealt with by & perfectly suited to automation just means that it doesn't take many human resources from other activities & can be dealt with more efficiently. It also free's up those human resources to focus on the other 4.
To increase the human resources further will require far greater investment. Lobby your MP.
You’re kind of ignoring the point. But I get why. The fact that speeding is easily dealt with by & perfectly suited to automation just means that it doesn't take many human resources from other activities & can be dealt with more efficiently. It also free's up those human resources to focus on the other 4.
To increase the human resources further will require far greater investment. Lobby your MP.
BlackWidow13 said:
vonhosen said:
The human resources available are targeting the other 4, more so than those resources are dealing with targeted speed enforcement.
The fact that speeding is easily dealt with by & perfectly suited to automation just means that it doesn't take many human resources from other activities & can be dealt with more efficiently. It also free's up those human resources to focus on the other 4.
To increase the human resources further will require far greater investment. Lobby your MP.
You’re kind of ignoring the point. But I get why. The fact that speeding is easily dealt with by & perfectly suited to automation just means that it doesn't take many human resources from other activities & can be dealt with more efficiently. It also free's up those human resources to focus on the other 4.
To increase the human resources further will require far greater investment. Lobby your MP.
Perhaps be clearer about what you are after.
heebeegeetee said:
Is the original article stating that the adjusted speed figures show speed to be a higher factor in the crash happening, or a higher factor in it being fatal?
I'm erring towards reading it as the latter.
It reads like a higher contributory factor in fatal crashes.I'm erring towards reading it as the latter.
Crashes are classed as damage only, slight injury, serious injury, fatal.
You then have contributory factors for each crash.
So when the investigator is filling it out it's what are the contributory factors to this fatal collision. (Or if it had been a slight injury the same question but for a slight injury collision).
So if you were doing 30 in a 20 & hit a child, it (exceeding the limit) could be a contributory factor in the fatality collision should they die.
The figures they are using are for fatal crashes only though.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 16th May 20:51
NMNeil 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.
Numbers 1 to 4 you can't control, number 5 you can, by limiting the top speed of cars.1) Careless driving
2) Drink/Drugs driving
3) Mobile phones
4) No seatbelt
5) Excess speed.
Fairly obvious.
But as I suggested previously, limiting cars to 20mph maximum in 'driver control mode' would...
Edited by bigothunter on Monday 16th May 21:35
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?bigothunter said:
It could fall off a trolley jack and crush you very slowly...
But that's user error just as accidents are driver error. The inanimate car cannot cause an accident.
So the answer is to remove the muppet from behind the wheel. Fully autonomous driving mandated for all speeds above 20mph.
Technically if it falls off a trolley jack it is moving.But that's user error just as accidents are driver error. The inanimate car cannot cause an accident.
So the answer is to remove the muppet from behind the wheel. Fully autonomous driving mandated for all speeds above 20mph.
Edited by bigothunter on Monday 16th May 17:03
Although it would be tempting natural selection to go under a vehicle supported by nothing other than a jack.
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.
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.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff