Collision Course ..... Anyone watching ?
Collision Course ..... Anyone watching ?
Author
Discussion

ultimapaul

Original Poster:

3,949 posts

291 months

Tuesday 14th January 2003
quotequote all
Looks interesting!

johnelliott

293 posts

287 months

Tuesday 14th January 2003
quotequote all
Yes, I am, computer and tv in the same room, ideal.
It is interesting but I guess the conclusion will be that bad luck is a very bad thing

John

nick heppinstall

9,049 posts

307 months

Tuesday 14th January 2003
quotequote all
Hey John what av u done to deserve the ' Respect ' knocking ? Ave a + from me to bump it up a bit !!

corozin

2,680 posts

298 months

Tuesday 14th January 2003
quotequote all
It's an excellent, informative program. I hope a lot of you have managed to catch it. I for one have learned a tonight based on these people's experiences.

Improved driver training & testing is something I believe in very strongly (for myself included) and it's good to see that point made strongly, and free of a lot of the jingoism that is a hallmark of the media's coverage of the subject.

John

mr_tony

6,350 posts

296 months

Tuesday 14th January 2003
quotequote all
bu**er missed it. Anyone know if it's being repeated?

ultimapaul

Original Poster:

3,949 posts

291 months

Tuesday 14th January 2003
quotequote all
I must admit, one of the more informative doc's without the need for over dramatisation (999) and anti-car rhetoric (all the others)

White van driver, Jesus, the most unluckiest ever?
Was the Peugeot driver a numpty not prepaired to let the Saab past?

dougal

597 posts

311 months

Tuesday 14th January 2003
quotequote all
Informative maybe and agree with most of it, especially increased driver training, should be compulsory and funded by the value of scrap Gatso's, or by revenue of appropriately sited Gatso's!

But.....where did that bloke in the back of the Saab get the figure of ........ reducing your average speed by 1mph reduces your chance of having an accident by 5%??? If it's true it's true, but how can you ever measure it?

johnelliott

293 posts

287 months

Tuesday 14th January 2003
quotequote all

nick heppinstall said: Hey John what av u done to deserve the ' Respect ' knocking ? Ave a + from me to bump it up a bit !!



Thanks Nick, it was probably caused by the 'Teachers' thread a few days ago, a lot of people got quite ratty about that, felt I should treat their opinions as established facts

John

alan_driver

1,281 posts

284 months

Tuesday 14th January 2003
quotequote all

nick heppinstall said: Hey John what av u done to deserve the ' Respect ' knocking ? Ave a + from me to bump it up a bit !!

Likewise, what happened to yours? Havent seen anything bad from you. All you need to do is write a thread 'caught a drunken driver' and your rating will go up by 20, as Marcos Manic proved. Nah, cant be faulted, top guy, well done.

rude girl

6,937 posts

286 months

Tuesday 14th January 2003
quotequote all

dougal said:

But.....where did that bloke in the back of the Saab get the figure of ........ reducing your average speed by 1mph reduces your chance of having an accident by 5%??? If it's true it's true, but how can you ever measure it?


Exactly what I thought, and I managed to disappear up my own ass trying to work it out. I suppose what they've calculated is that if your chance of having an accident at say 50mph is 1 in 1000, then at 51 it would be 1 in 950?. But where does it go from there? If you follow that through, then at 70mph, you would have a 1:1 chance of having an accident, which doesn't work for me.

I can accept that driving at higher speeds reduces the available reaction time after an event(therefore increasing the probability of an accident), and I can accept that a higher speed increases the probability of a more serious impact, but I can't work this one out at all. 5% is a hellish high number.

Do you suppose they meant 1% for each 5mph?

>> Edited by rude girl on Tuesday 14th January 22:58

nick heppinstall

9,049 posts

307 months

Tuesday 14th January 2003
quotequote all

alan_driver said:

nick heppinstall said: Hey John what av u done to deserve the ' Respect ' knocking ? Ave a + from me to bump it up a bit !!

Likewise, what happened to yours? Havent seen anything bad from you. All you need to do is write a thread 'caught a drunken driver' and your rating will go up by 20, as Marcos Manic proved. Nah, cant be faulted, top guy, well done.

Guess I'm just not that popular Have a plus on me though Alan !!



daydreamer

1,409 posts

284 months

Tuesday 14th January 2003
quotequote all
Must have been watching a different program . Thought it dragged, and even though there was 15 mins of informative stuff in there, I don't think that they really needed to spend ten minutes winding up to, if they had had another piece of fish, or stopped to look in a window, or driven at a different speed then they wouldn't have been there when the crash happened. All pretty obvious, and a missed opportunity to show how accidents could be avoided.

Let's face it, from the three cases examined, the conclusions were:-

1) - unlucky
2) - don't know what happened here
3) - doesn't matter what you do - some idiot can still kill you.

Hardly informative. The only advice given was, as rudegirl has already pointed out that if you travel at 70 mph you have a 100% chance of an accident .

Sympathy to the white van man though. As has been said already, the unluckiest man in the world.

dougal

597 posts

311 months

Tuesday 14th January 2003
quotequote all
Rude Girl, but what would happen if you stayed in the shower a wee bit longer before setting off for work and then you stopped for petrol and decided to only fill up half the tank instead of a full one, how would that change the % chance of having an accident?

An accident is an accident, not a purposfull action, so how can a purposefull action like reducing your average speed by 1mph possibly reduce your chance of having an accident like someone flying over from the opposite side of the road?

One way (and almost the only way IMHO) of reducing accident stats is by driver training, OK I know this is a purposefull action, but, if you are more aware and prepared then surely this can only help?



>> Edited by dougal on Tuesday 14th January 23:23

funkihamsta

1,261 posts

290 months

Wednesday 15th January 2003
quotequote all
The 5% per mph is derived from some dodgy graph lines based on speeds along road types as determined on en entirely unscientific basis by the researchers of some road speed report trl1421.

Read www.safespeed.org.uk/trl421.html

Read the whole site if you can, as it is well balanced and good debating ammo. Some of the statisitcal methods used are shown be dubious at best.

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

282 months

Wednesday 15th January 2003
quotequote all
Right, then, lets do the maths.

If I reduce my speed by 1mph, I'm 5% less likely to crash.

So, if I reduce my speed by 20mph. I'll NEVER crash.

I shall now accelerate to 150, drop back to 130, and I'm invincible, untouchable, totally safe.

Someone tell the Transport Research Laboratory.........time to scrap the limits

JMGS4

8,905 posts

297 months

Wednesday 15th January 2003
quotequote all

dougal said: Informative maybe and agree with most of it, especially increased driver training, should be compulsory and funded by the value of scrap Gatso's, or by revenue of appropriately sited Gatso's!
But.....where did that bloke in the back of the Saab get the figure of ........ reducing your average speed by 1mph reduces your chance of having an accident by 5%??? If it's true it's true, but how can you ever measure it?


SO... drawing the logical conclusion, reduce speed by 20mph and there NO risk!!???!!! Wot a Load of CODS!!!!!

BUT the rest of the Prog very good and also stating correctly that no matter how good or bad you are at driving, it can always be another who takes you the innocent out!

>> Edited by JMGS4 on Wednesday 15th January 08:10

Size Nine Elm

5,167 posts

311 months

Wednesday 15th January 2003
quotequote all

JMGS4 said:
SO... drawing the logical conclusion, reduce speed by 20mph and there NO risk!!???!!! Wot a Load of CODS!!!!!


a) mathematically, no, it wouldn't be a reduction by (20x5%), it would be (95%x95%x95%x95%...) up to 20 factors, giving a 36% (or 74% less) chance of an accident at 20 mph less.
b) but the 5% is drawn from TRL421 and is bollocks anyway


BUT the rest of the Prog very good and also stating correctly that no matter how good or bad you are at driving, it can always be another who takes you the innocent out!


Shit happens...

robkola

1,589 posts

291 months

Wednesday 15th January 2003
quotequote all
The bottom line is it takes about one second to decide your fate . . . so all the caution/preparation/awareness/skill can still bite us. Alas the Law is more interested in photgraphing speeding vehicles than "having a word" with obvious dangerous/slack drivers.

joospeed

4,473 posts

305 months

Wednesday 15th January 2003
quotequote all

dougal said: An accident is an accident, not a purposfull action, so how can a purposefull action like reducing your average speed by 1mph possibly reduce your chance of having an accident like someone flying over from the opposite side of the road?



I'm not sure there's any such thing as an accident in the vast majority of road traffic collisions (or other things) .. in most cases it's negligence. You can't say "I accidently didn't look where I was going" , or that "I accidently drove at an inappropriate speed for the conditions" etc .. just cos someone didn't mean for something to happen doesn't make it an acccident if it could have been preventable with a bit of thought.
imo.

Bonce

4,339 posts

306 months

Wednesday 15th January 2003
quotequote all
How many times did they drag over the point that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

[dramatic voice]
"by spending time performing an extra wipe after going to the toilet, Michelle sealed her fate for the rest of her doomed journey"
[/dramatic voice]

I gave up after 40 minutes and switched off. I wanted to learn the science behind car crashes not the philosophy!