TRANSPORT2000-DRIVE ON MOTORWATYS @ 50MPH IN COMPL

[A57 HSV]

"For every 1mph reduction in a driver’s speed, the chances of being involved in a crash decrease by 5 per cent. Source: Transport Research Laboratory"
The above quote is taken from the Transport2000 website, from the AA road atlas link under the news section.
Now I'm no genius (or a good speller.LOL), but if the Speed Limit is 70mph then driving at 50 mph will reduce my chances of being involved in a crash to 0%. Is that correct?
Who believes this c**p?

>> Edited by A57 HSV on Wednesday 29th June 16:18

[funkyrobot]

A57 HSV said:

"For every 1mph reduction in a driver’s speed, the chances of being involved in a crash decrease by 5 per cent. Source: Transport Research Laboratory" The above quote is taken from the Transport2000 website, from the AA road atlas link under the news section. Now I'm no genius, but if the Speed Limit is 70mph then driving at 50 mph will reduce my chances of being involved in a crash to 0%. Is that correct? Who believes this c**p?

So if you are driving at 1mph and you slow down to 0mph, you have only reduced your chance of being involved in a crash to 95%

How odd!!

[autismuk]

Nope, because you reduce 5% from each point, not 5% of the original.

However, it's still bollox.

[Munter]

I find that not driving like a numpty has reduced my accident rate by 100%! That and the fact that i've done more damage to a vehicle at 1/2mph than when I lost it at ~40mph (in a 60) kinda shows just how much balls they are talking.

[streaky]

A57 HSV said:

Who believes this c**p?

Government ministers, members of Brake, and other assorted 'ejits' - Streaky

[GreenV8S]

A57 HSV said:

"For every 1mph reduction in a driver’s speed, the chances of being involved in a crash decrease by 5 per cent.

I don't know where this quote was taken from, but it's suspiciously similar to a very old report (from TRL iirc) which compared a small sample from different countries taken years apart and concluded that in this sample, the slower roads were also the safest. From a statistical point of view this is utter nonesense. Even if it was true, it's a huge step from this to saying that going slower will make you safer, although that's the implication they're trying to make. In fact there may even b an argument that by shortening journey times and hence time exposed to danger, going faster actually makes you safer.

[kevin ritson]

I remember James Hunt (a man far, far more qualified to comment on speed than any of these fools) saying that he'd retired because even if he drove slower, an accident at 150 made little difference compared to one at 160.

BTW, WTF have Transport 2000 got to do with speeding? Aren't they supposed to be researching alternative ways of transport? Sounds like they're beyond their (public funded) remit. Why is it that some people marvel at a train that can travel at 200mph and moan if a car's capable of 150?

[LongQ]

GreenV8S said:

I don't know where this quote was taken from, but it's suspiciously similar to a very old report (from TRL iirc)...

There seem to be very few studies and reports and so those that there are, and such as they are, are repeated continuously until they become self justifying by circular usage.

So very like the expert opinion 'shaken baby' syndrome (so recently brought into question) and the unshakeable belief in global warming, mainly based on one graph (the (in)famous hockeystick of Mann, et al.).

But keep repeating the mantra and it WILL become a truth.

Remember, humankind at large still puts more store by faith systems (which individuals can at least partly adapt to their own comfort zones) than in reasoned science (which they have to understand in detail and most of us cannot understand at that level and many do not wish to - it is much too precise without offer the answer to everything.)

[DeMolay]

A57 HSV said:

"For every 1mph reduction in a driver’s speed, the chances of being involved in a crash decrease by 5 per cent. Source: Transport Research Laboratory"

HTF do they work these figures out?

"88.8% of statistics are made up." (unknown author)

[dilbert]

DeMolay said:

A57 HSV said: "For every 1mph reduction in a driver’s speed, the chances of being involved in a crash decrease by 5 per cent. Source: Transport Research Laboratory" HTF do they work these figures out? "88.8% of statistics are made up." (unknown author)

And at least two thirds of those have greater than +/-75% error!

[8Pack]

dilbert said:

DeMolay said: A57 HSV said: "For every 1mph reduction in a driver’s speed, the chances of being involved in a crash decrease by 5 per cent. Source: Transport Research Laboratory" HTF do they work these figures out? "88.8% of statistics are made up." (unknown author) And at least two thirds of those have greater than +/-75% error!

And the real figure was 88.9% anyway because they had forgotten to factor in their own statistics.

[JMGS4]

I remember reading in a broadsheet down at my coffehouse that Mr Stevensons horseless carriage pulled by a, god forbid, steam engine (!) will kill anyone travelling in it at those precarious speeds due to lack of oxygen. A horrendous speed of thirty miles per hour was mentioned, enough to kill everyone observing this devilish machinery within a radius of two miles to due lack of air!

[bad company]

I just nicked some of the points already made and sent them by email to transport 2000. Will let you know what they say.

[safespeed]

The original version of the T2000 claim came from a report known as 'Finch'. There's a dismissal on the ABD web site.

The newer version of the claim comes from TRL421 and TRL511. Read about what I think of those here: www.safespeed.org.uk/trl421.html

See what happened when I wrote to the TRL about them here: www.safespeed.org.uk/trl.html

[fidgits]

Interesting.

Considering it is FACT that the Motorways are the safest of the british roads...

so, a campaign to reduce the speed limit on britans safest roads makes no sense what-so-ever.

Now, if they were campaigning to reduce the speed of NSL limit 'single track, country lanes' down to 50 - I would understand...

[A57 HSV]

bad company said:

I just nicked some of the points already made and sent them by email to transport 2000. Will let you know what they say.

You will receive a standard reply, thanking you for your comments.
Having spent some time looking at the Transport2000 website, I have to say that I find it rather sinister.
They say that they are an Independent National Movement. They are not specific about their funders, only stating that they are Charitable Trusts, the Transport Industry, Unions & Individuals.
Michael Palin is the President & Jenny Agutter a Patron.
It would appear that they are a reasonably big organisation, with local support groups.
They would come across as a very credible organisation & this it what worries me, when they make such outrageous claims/statements with regards to the speed of vehicles & safety on U.K roads.

[minimax]

streaky said:

A57 HSV said: Who believes this c**p? Government ministers, members of Brake, and other assorted 'ejits' - Streaky

we're all screwed.

[cortinaman]

minimax said:

we're all screwed.

yep.......we probably get alot more than the members of t2000 and brake.

(in MY honest opinion i always thought t2000 was made up of virgins with no life of their own to lead,brake were made up of whinging little pussies and the scummera pratnerships of worthless bastards to a man.)

[GreenV8S]

cortinaman said:

in MY honest opinion ...

It might be more constructive to think of them as people who want a lot of the same things we do (safer roads, cleaner environment, to be able to travel freely and easily etc) but just have different opinions about the best way to achieve this. If your opening position is to start chucking personal abuse at them then you've immediately ruled out any possibility of reasoned discussion, and you've probably alienated anyone else who was listening who might have started with an open mind. I'm convinced that the only way to pursuade people about this is to be more reasonable than the 'speed kills' lobby.

[TripleS]

GreenV8S said:

cortinaman said: in MY honest opinion ... It might be more constructive to think of them as people who want a lot of the same things we do (safer roads, cleaner environment, to be able to travel freely and easily etc) but just have different opinions about the best way to achieve this. If your opening position is to start chucking personal abuse at them then you've immediately ruled out any possibility of reasoned discussion, and you've probably alienated anyone else who was listening who might have started with an open mind. I'm convinced that the only way to pursuade people about this is to be more reasonable than the 'speed kills' lobby.

I think you are right Peter. My opinion of Brake and T2000 etc. is far from complimentary, but I think we need to keep plugging away with constructive proposals of our own and avoid abusive responses. Some of the groups we think of as the opposition shoot themselves in the foot quite frequently and we need to turn that against them, SafeSpeed fashion.

Best wishes all,
Dave.