Sunday Times/ Brake lazy/incompetent journalism.
Discussion
In an inset piece on the M5 crash by Simon McGee a supposed journalist at the Sunday Times, Ellen Booth of Brake is quoted....
"We don't yet know what exactly caused the crash and how significant speed was as an issue.But we do know that higher speed limits mean higher average speeds. And the faster people are travelling when they are involved in a collision the more likely it is that they will die."
As far as I am aware we have had no indication at all that excessive speed was a factor. how do we know that higher speed limits mean higher average speeds? And how do we know they are more likely to die?
No learned study is quoted or referenced? No university is cited.
One can only assume that a press release was fired off to the Sunday Times, and that they were either too lazy or incompetent to query it or check it .
"We don't yet know what exactly caused the crash and how significant speed was as an issue.But we do know that higher speed limits mean higher average speeds. And the faster people are travelling when they are involved in a collision the more likely it is that they will die."
As far as I am aware we have had no indication at all that excessive speed was a factor. how do we know that higher speed limits mean higher average speeds? And how do we know they are more likely to die?
No learned study is quoted or referenced? No university is cited.
One can only assume that a press release was fired off to the Sunday Times, and that they were either too lazy or incompetent to query it or check it .
Nothing lazy about it at all.
Physics, statistic mathmatics and mathmatical logic dictates that the more speed you carry into a crash, the more likely you are to suffer terminal injury.
There was nothing wrong with the piece of all, except in the grasping nature of actually including it. I didnt like to see it, thought The Sunday Times were pandering to an interest group at the wrong time, but they arent guilty of the lazy and incompetent accusation you throw.
Physics, statistic mathmatics and mathmatical logic dictates that the more speed you carry into a crash, the more likely you are to suffer terminal injury.
There was nothing wrong with the piece of all, except in the grasping nature of actually including it. I didnt like to see it, thought The Sunday Times were pandering to an interest group at the wrong time, but they arent guilty of the lazy and incompetent accusation you throw.
ArmaghMan said:
In an inset piece on the M5 crash by Simon McGee a supposed journalist at the Sunday Times, Ellen Booth of Brake is quoted....
"We don't yet know what exactly caused the crash and how significant speed was as an issue.But we do know that higher speed limits mean higher average speeds. And the faster people are travelling when they are involved in a collision the more likely it is that they will die."
As far as I am aware we have had no indication at all that excessive speed was a factor. how do we know that higher speed limits mean higher average speeds? And how do we know they are more likely to die?
No learned study is quoted or referenced? No university is cited.
One can only assume that a press release was fired off to the Sunday Times, and that they were either too lazy or incompetent to query it or check it .
IMO there's a good chance that the cause was driving too close and possibly too fast for the conditions but that has nothing at all to do with speed limits either real or imagined."We don't yet know what exactly caused the crash and how significant speed was as an issue.But we do know that higher speed limits mean higher average speeds. And the faster people are travelling when they are involved in a collision the more likely it is that they will die."
As far as I am aware we have had no indication at all that excessive speed was a factor. how do we know that higher speed limits mean higher average speeds? And how do we know they are more likely to die?
No learned study is quoted or referenced? No university is cited.
One can only assume that a press release was fired off to the Sunday Times, and that they were either too lazy or incompetent to query it or check it .
Ellen Booth should be ashamed of herself for hijacking such a tragic event for her quasi-political purposes.
DJRC said:
Physics, statistic mathmatics and mathmatical logic dictates that the more speed you carry into a crash, the more likely you are to suffer terminal injury.
True, but unless you are asleep at the wheel or completelyclueless, impact speed isn't the same as free speed before
the crash. Most folks use their brakes.
For example, the average speed on the mostly unlimited German
autobahn is currently about 95 mph and increases by a mph
or two each year.
By the very nature of averages, there are a range of speeds.
Let's say about 1/3 of folks are doing less than 80 mph.
Let's also say about 1/3 of folks are doing over 110 mph.
That's quite fast compared to most of Europe, yet the Germans
get 2.2 deaths per billion vehicle kilometers. Their close
cultural neighbours, the Austrians, get almost twice as many,
4.2 per billion vehicle kilometers, and the Austrian
autobahn is limited to 130 kmh.
How come the German autobahn is far safer than the Austrian autobahn ?
I conclude that you can't measure safe driving in mph or kph
and that motorway speed limits exist for political reasons,
not road safety reasons.
Data from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_autobahns
dcb said:
DJRC said:
Physics, statistic mathmatics and mathmatical logic dictates that the more speed you carry into a crash, the more likely you are to suffer terminal injury.
True, but unless you are asleep at the wheel or completelyclueless, impact speed isn't the same as free speed before
the crash. Most folks use their brakes.
For example, the average speed on the mostly unlimited German
autobahn is currently about 95 mph and increases by a mph
or two each year.
By the very nature of averages, there are a range of speeds.
Let's say about 1/3 of folks are doing less than 80 mph.
Let's also say about 1/3 of folks are doing over 110 mph.
That's quite fast compared to most of Europe, yet the Germans
get 2.2 deaths per billion vehicle kilometers. Their close
cultural neighbours, the Austrians, get almost twice as many,
4.2 per billion vehicle kilometers, and the Austrian
autobahn is limited to 130 kmh.
How come the German autobahn is far safer than the Austrian autobahn ?
I conclude that you can't measure safe driving in mph or kph
and that motorway speed limits exist for political reasons,
not road safety reasons.
Data from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_autobahns
DSM2 said:
IMO there's a good chance that the cause was driving too close and possibly too fast for the conditions but that has nothing at all to do with speed limits either real or imagined.
Ellen Booth should be ashamed of herself for hijacking such a tragic event for her quasi-political purposes.
Highlighted the relevant, and most likely cause.Ellen Booth should be ashamed of herself for hijacking such a tragic event for her quasi-political purposes.
I see this almost every minute of my daily commute. The gap that you keep to the vehicle ahead is 2 seconds in the dry, 4 seconds in the wet. Doesn't matter what the conditions seem to be, people just automatically, stupidly go ahead and fill whatever gap you leave between you and the car ahead. Of course they're all driving gods, with cars in absolutely perfect condition, and they have the fastest reaction times to danger that you've ever seen ....
It wasn't speed that caused the accident per se, it was most likely bad driving, inappropriate speed for the conditions, people not leaving a suitable gap. But of course there's idiotic groups like Brake who try to always push their own blinkered agenda without any thought.
clonmult said:
But of course there's idiotic groups like Brake who try to always push their own blinkered agenda without any thought.
As you would expect them to - but of course it doesn't necessarily mean they're right.In a nutshell, for their own reasons, BRAKE don't want to see the motorway speed limit increased. Never mind that motorways are the safest roads in the country, never mind that a disproprtionate number of people ignore the motorway speed limit anyway (when compared to the level of self-compliance to speed limits on non-motorway roads), they just donn't want it increased. Full stop.
Our local BBC news (the west country, that is, where we're getting more than the national coverage on this) was "dedicated" to the accident last night. They were interviewing some junior minister at Transport, and some of the questions put to him had to be heard to be believed:
"Minister, how do people drive in bad weather conditions?"
"Is this now a good time for the government to go ahead with the proposed increase in the motorway speed limit?"
To give the minister his due, his answers could be summarised as "wait and f
king see what the investigation concludes" and more credit to him for not falling into some of the dafter journalistic "traps" we were subjected to on Points West last night.My take on this, and I certainly hope that somebody with a higher profile and more access to the media than I have picks up on it, is that we don't know yet what caused the accident (although its beginning to look like smoke from an adjacent fireworks display at Taunton Rugby Club didn't exactly help visibility on that section of the road that night). Therefore, BRAKE and their kind should be exposed for trying to push their own personal agenda on speed limits on the back of the grief suffered by the relatives of those killed.
DSM2 said:
ArmaghMan said:
In an inset piece on the M5 crash by Simon McGee a supposed journalist at the Sunday Times, Ellen Booth of Brake is quoted....
"We don't yet know what exactly caused the crash and how significant speed was as an issue.But we do know that higher speed limits mean higher average speeds. And the faster people are travelling when they are involved in a collision the more likely it is that they will die."
As far as I am aware we have had no indication at all that excessive speed was a factor. how do we know that higher speed limits mean higher average speeds? And how do we know they are more likely to die?
No learned study is quoted or referenced? No university is cited.
One can only assume that a press release was fired off to the Sunday Times, and that they were either too lazy or incompetent to query it or check it .
IMO there's a good chance that the cause was driving too close and possibly too fast for the conditions but that has nothing at all to do with speed limits either real or imagined."We don't yet know what exactly caused the crash and how significant speed was as an issue.But we do know that higher speed limits mean higher average speeds. And the faster people are travelling when they are involved in a collision the more likely it is that they will die."
As far as I am aware we have had no indication at all that excessive speed was a factor. how do we know that higher speed limits mean higher average speeds? And how do we know they are more likely to die?
No learned study is quoted or referenced? No university is cited.
One can only assume that a press release was fired off to the Sunday Times, and that they were either too lazy or incompetent to query it or check it .
Ellen Booth should be ashamed of herself for hijacking such a tragic event for her quasi-political purposes.
For this to have been in the Sunday Times that landed on my doorstep Sunday morning, Brake must have prepared and fired off their press release whilst the police were still scouring the wreckage at the site for bodies. A hugely insensitive and cynical bit of campaigning imo, and I wonder if they will now be campaigning for the banning of firework displays and bonfires?
chris_w said:
For this to have been in the Sunday Times that landed on my doorstep Sunday morning, Brake must have prepared and fired off their press release whilst the police were still scouring the wreckage at the site for bodies. A hugely insensitive and cynical bit of campaigning imo, and I wonder if they will now be campaigning for the banning of firework displays and bonfires?
I had'nt even thought of that when i posted my original piece. As you say the police were still on scene and the motor way still closed.DJRC said:
Nothing lazy about it at all.
Physics, statistic mathmatics and mathmatical logic dictates that the more speed you carry into a crash, the more likely you are to suffer terminal injury.
The counter argument to this is that with lower speeds, there is more slow overtaking, more closely spaced clumps of traffic across the lanes, more chance of a pile up happening in the first place if someone makes a mistake such as a poorly judged lane change. Physics, statistic mathmatics and mathmatical logic dictates that the more speed you carry into a crash, the more likely you are to suffer terminal injury.
This can be seen with elephant racing trucks. Stretches of 2 lane motorways and dual carriageways where lorry overtaking has been banned have seen a corresponding improvement in safety. Despite traffic moving faster.
DJRC said:
Nothing lazy about it at all.
Physics, statistic mathmatics and mathmatical logic dictates that the more speed you carry into a crash, the more likely you are to suffer terminal injury.
There was nothing wrong with the piece of all, except in the grasping nature of actually including it. I didnt like to see it, thought The Sunday Times were pandering to an interest group at the wrong time, but they arent guilty of the lazy and incompetent accusation you throw.
I agree. As much as people like to hate 'Brake' it stands to reason (and is slightly obvious) that an increase in limit will result in higher averages. It isn't rocket science.Physics, statistic mathmatics and mathmatical logic dictates that the more speed you carry into a crash, the more likely you are to suffer terminal injury.
There was nothing wrong with the piece of all, except in the grasping nature of actually including it. I didnt like to see it, thought The Sunday Times were pandering to an interest group at the wrong time, but they arent guilty of the lazy and incompetent accusation you throw.
I didn't read the article but for those saying that it hasn't been decided whether speed was an issue. A witness quote from the BBC:
"One car overtook us going at about 60 or 70 miles an hour and just crashed straight into a lorry."
It really doesn't matter what anyone says, if people weren't driving as fast as they were then the scale of the accident wouldn't have been as bad. I'm not advocating the reduction of limits or that the limit shouldn't be increased to 80mph but it is physically impossible to destroy cars, like they were, without cars carrying too much speed.
The witness reports said there was heavy rain and fog. The smoke clearly didn't add to the situation but with heavy rain and fog, doing 60-70mph is way to fast.
Fatman2 said:
DJRC said:
Nothing lazy about it at all.
Physics, statistic mathmatics and mathmatical logic dictates that the more speed you carry into a crash, the more likely you are to suffer terminal injury.
There was nothing wrong with the piece of all, except in the grasping nature of actually including it. I didnt like to see it, thought The Sunday Times were pandering to an interest group at the wrong time, but they arent guilty of the lazy and incompetent accusation you throw.
I agree. As much as people like to hate 'Brake' it stands to reason (and is slightly obvious) that an increase in limit will result in higher averages. It isn't rocket science.Physics, statistic mathmatics and mathmatical logic dictates that the more speed you carry into a crash, the more likely you are to suffer terminal injury.
There was nothing wrong with the piece of all, except in the grasping nature of actually including it. I didnt like to see it, thought The Sunday Times were pandering to an interest group at the wrong time, but they arent guilty of the lazy and incompetent accusation you throw.
They are a nuisance and hindrance to road safety with their narrow minded crusade against road users. Why the media continually consult them is a complete mystery to me.
Fatman2 said:
it stands to reason (and is slightly obvious) that an increase in limit will result in higher averages. It isn't rocket science.
Not necessarily - we all know that the 70 limit is widely flouted (~49% iirc) so if a new 80 limit was more heavily enforced (average speed cameras?) then I suspect the real average speeds seen on the motorways wouldn't increase that much at all, especially as the 90 plus 'outliers' would potentially be much reduced.chris_w said:
Fatman2 said:
it stands to reason (and is slightly obvious) that an increase in limit will result in higher averages. It isn't rocket science.
Not necessarily - we all know that the 70 limit is widely flouted (~49% iirc) so if a new 80 limit was more heavily enforced (average speed cameras?) then I suspect the real average speeds seen on the motorways wouldn't increase that much at all, especially as the 90 plus 'outliers' would potentially be much reduced.
In reality it will be difficult to tell. As you say a lot of people are already doing 80mph so no change there!
But still, going by your ~49% then the other ~51% will likely increase their speeds, pushing up the average (given that people generally drive to the limit).
Assuming a 50/50 split then the average is currently 75mph. If everyone was doing 80mph then the average would be er, 80mph LOL
Hell my maths has improved.I agree though. It's small and almost insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
DJRC said:
Nothing lazy about it at all.
Physics, statistic mathmatics and mathmatical logic dictates that the more speed you carry into a crash, the more likely you are to suffer terminal injury.
There was nothing wrong with the piece of all, except in the grasping nature of actually including it. I didnt like to see it, thought The Sunday Times were pandering to an interest group at the wrong time, but they arent guilty of the lazy and incompetent accusation you throw.
And does free travelling speed equate to crashing speed. Physics, statistic mathmatics and mathmatical logic dictates that the more speed you carry into a crash, the more likely you are to suffer terminal injury.
There was nothing wrong with the piece of all, except in the grasping nature of actually including it. I didnt like to see it, thought The Sunday Times were pandering to an interest group at the wrong time, but they arent guilty of the lazy and incompetent accusation you throw.
I seem to remember an article that showed the faster you travelled the more attention you paid, the quicker you reacted and the collision speeds were quite similar between 30mph and 70mph.
Fatman2 said:
I agree. As much as people like to hate 'Brake' it stands to reason (and is slightly obvious) that an increase in limit will result in higher averages. It isn't rocket science.
I didn't read the article but for those saying that it hasn't been decided whether speed was an issue. A witness quote from the BBC:
"One car overtook us going at about 60 or 70 miles an hour and just crashed straight into a lorry."
It really doesn't matter what anyone says, if people weren't driving as fast as they were then the scale of the accident wouldn't have been as bad. I'm not advocating the reduction of limits or that the limit shouldn't be increased to 80mph but it is physically impossible to destroy cars, like they were, without cars carrying too much speed.
The witness reports said there was heavy rain and fog. The smoke clearly didn't add to the situation but with heavy rain and fog, doing 60-70mph is way to fast.
So the moral is that 70mph in heavy rain, fog and possibly smoke obscurred vision is a bad thing, so it's not the speed limit or average speed that's the problem, rather it's the use of inappropriate speed for the conditions. Add to that the prepensity to follow too close and you have a recipe for a pile-up. But, let's see what the enquiry and the facts say. I didn't read the article but for those saying that it hasn't been decided whether speed was an issue. A witness quote from the BBC:
"One car overtook us going at about 60 or 70 miles an hour and just crashed straight into a lorry."
It really doesn't matter what anyone says, if people weren't driving as fast as they were then the scale of the accident wouldn't have been as bad. I'm not advocating the reduction of limits or that the limit shouldn't be increased to 80mph but it is physically impossible to destroy cars, like they were, without cars carrying too much speed.
The witness reports said there was heavy rain and fog. The smoke clearly didn't add to the situation but with heavy rain and fog, doing 60-70mph is way to fast.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff